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 As Federal law, DADT must be repealed by Congress.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

[Lisa-G]

"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."

I do believe that change will occur for Lesbians & Gay men on many fronts. I do also think back to what Obama said about McCain during the first economic bailout meetings: The president needs to address more than one thing at once.

There are many areas that Obama needs to address very soon. I feel disappointed that so many feel that equal rights for all Americans, and all taxpayers, is not a major priority. I think this is the time for unprecedented activism by our community to let Obama and congress know that they need to move the civil rights issues to their rightful place, which is one of the first issues that should be addressed.

[MagicalPossibilities]

What is there to "dismantle"? A stroke of the pen, and the GLB men and women who have been serving honorably and bravely all along from the confines of the closet will no longer be subject to dismissal based on their sexual orientation.

[FogBelter]

Mr. Ridley, all that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" managed to do was take an open military secret and apply penalties to it. That was unfair and wrong and should end. Americans who are willing to put their lives on the line for the rest of us shouldn't be forced to live in the shadows ... that's simply unAmerican.

[decrepittex]

It's about time to do away with this DADT policy. All the arguements for keeping it are lame. If a
person is such a homophobe that they are threatened, they are the ones with the problem. I
served with men who we all knew were gay and it never destroyed moral in the unit. The problem
is with men who are not sure about their own sexual orientation.

[Balancement]

Bingo!

[siney]

yep....projection is a terrible thing....to the think of the misery it has wrought...

[Jacqbear]

Oh and the other thing is that sexual harrassment of women is far more common and there's very little done about that as if it were seemingly okay. Because this is a straight activity? What? Oh and ask the guys in the Navy what they do for fun on ships even though the guys claim straighthood. Military get over it. Gays are as capable of serving morally as well as everyone else. Cohesion has to do with the training that every soldier gets. Breaking that cohesion probably has more to do with the stresses of combat than showering.

[TomInJax]

One of the Commanding Officers on my Carrier was gay. I saw him sipping a beer in a gay bar several months before we deployed in '95. I told my bf (still together) that I knew him from the ship; just wasn't sure who he was. We went back to shooting pool and when I looked up later, we had made eye contact, he was gone. When we deployed I saw him on the sponson smoking a cigarette. He made eye contact with me with a look like, Don't say anything'." I then noticed the Commander's oak leaves on his lapel and I realized he was the Skipper of the Helo squadron. I just chuckled to my self and finished my smoke.

I just find it funny that people are so worried that gays in the military might hurt our security.

We all serve(d) proudly, and always will.

[19]

May I ask what "serving morally" means, Jacqbear?

(I do grok you are friendly fire, or not even that, dear. (Not even fire, lol--almost certainly friendly.)

Peace. I know what I think, I'd like to see what you come up with when you ponder what YOU think.

Have a lovely day.

[Jacqbear]

Yeah right; like the women (lesbian and nonlesbian) don't have enough problems with the nongay guys already...):

[DanmaxKL]

Isreal has an openly gay commado force battling the likes of Hizbillah and Hamas and Britain's SAS was founded by an openly homosexual man...Get with the program ,those of you who doubt...

[monicaangela]

I don't think gay people want to go back to the days of the segregated military like the one we had during WWI and parts of WWII where blacks and whites were segregated and though they were both fighting for their country, opportunities for blacks were very limited.

[DanmaxKL]

Did you know that the founder of the world's most formidable commando force,Britain's SAS was gay. There is also today a specialist gay isreali commando force. So yo see,gay men and women are just as capable if not more capable to do what some think they are not than what others would like to think they are

[Balancement]

Homophobes have this problem dealing with facts--so be gentle with them.

[PitBull6]

As do homophiles. I also found them very sensitive to any sort of criticism, even when one largely agrees with them.

[monicaangela]

Gay men and women are no different than any other men and women, they put their dresses and pants on the same, they go to school, church, etc., the same. The only difference is their sexual preference, which in my opinion should be their business.

[DRaymond]

There are many reports that the military would like to drop DADT as well but of course no active duty personnel will speak on the record. They have been having to lower standards and issue lots of waivers in order to meet their recruiting goals and they don't like it.

The smartest way for Obama to address this (and Obama has a knack for doing things the smartest way) would be to request the military to come up with a list of roles that could be served by openely homosexual personnel without adversely impacting unit function. That would cut off all of the conservative whining and posturing because it would be the military saying that it was OK.

[Lisa-G]

The idea that we should be relegated to certain positions is not okay with me. Treating the recruitment of Gays & Lesbians as lowered standards is not okay with me. We want equality. We want equality in the workplace, in the halls of our local governments where marriage licenses are given, in the military, etc.

[luvobama]

I have 4 children, all grown. Not one of them has any problem with gay people. I am telling you, we are evolving past bi go try. We need to in order to survive. H atred is taught behavior. We must never forget it.

[Bitsko]

I hope I'll be around for another forty years, just to outlive the old and middle-aged bigots of this country. The next generation to take power will be infinitely more tolerant and open minded

[luvobama]

They're not sc ared of who they are, so they're not afr aid of other people. It helps that they are exposed to many different kinds of people. That is really making a difference. Keep the faith!

[Balancement]

Bitsko, I hope you are too--but a lot of us "old and middle-aged" folks out here have been fighting for these rights for a long time. Let's hope it just doesn't take forty years!

[ProudMormon]

Do they have problems with Mormons?

[Steamboater]

You betcha ProudMoron.

[KevinMS]

"bi go try"

::chuckle::

[queertodaydotcom]

As a queer person against war it makes me sad that we are fighting to be included.

[BruceHNV]

Included in what - the society of people with full and equal rights to join the military or not as you choose?

[luvobama]

You missed his point.

[Bitsko]

I think I know what you mean, but a lot of people like being in the military. My father was in the Marines during the Korean conflict and then served 25 years in the Air Force, and he was a died in the wool socialist!

[liebo76]

I am personally against war but we (gay people) should be able to serve our country if we want to. If we serve in the service we should be treated the same as every other member of the military.

[monicaangela]

This is all a part of keeping you from enoying full citizenship. If you're not required to defend the country, if you're not allowed to defend the country, that makes you less of an American, therefore you are not entitled to all the benefits full citizenship brings. It makes it easier to tell you you can't marry, you can't adopt children, and a host of other things. In the sick mind of some people they find things like this to be a justification for their hatred and bigotry.

[Heru1]

We're supposed to be securing "Western" civilization? Western means what? Eurocentric? White?

[M1]

DADT Policy is indecent and needs to go sooner than later....it is on its way out.

[PitBull6]

I'm not sure if Ridley ever served but his piece suggests not. He somehow manages to confuse and/or contradict himself in his second to last paragraph, wrongly calling legitimate concerns about cohesion lies. While implying that openly gay servicemembers honorable and effective service has disproved those concerns, he finally admits that they still do not (largely) serve openly today. With that, his assertions are wrong because it hasn't been done in the US military. To muddy it even more, he believes the cohesion problems are somehow limited to the individual, when it is the team which suffers when cohesion dissolves.

I probably only about 10% different from Ridley's opinion on gays serving openly. I happen to belive tha the gay issue is more in line with the black issue of the 40s than the inclusion of women ever was. But he is naive and assumes too much, ignoring issues left over from both women and blacks (yes, even today).

[gaydm]

The problem can easily be solved by weeding out the REAL problem people, not the gay ones. That will fix the unit cohesion problem.

[PitBull6]

Pray tell us, what is the REAL problem?

[Heru1]

why don't you put that at the top of the agenda of the new Republican brand youre selling

[Blain]

the real question here is why does John Ridley think this is a priority for America given the enormous problems we are dealing with now? Is this a personal agenda of his?

[gaydm]

probably because he figures you had your shot at running the country your way, and now it is time to fix what you broke,

[Balancement]

Maybe he believes that "equality" is not just a word.

[MsLiz]

If you read the article, you would have seen that we have kicked out gays who can speak Arabic and Farsi. Those languages are two of the languages used in the war zones. There is also the problem of insufficient numbers of soldiers, which has resulted in the objectionable stop-loss policy and soldiers serving multiple tours of duty in war zones. It is an "enormous problem" for the military.

[SethBLiNK]

With Prop 8, the argument was made that allowing gay marriage would force us to redefine an institution differently than the way it has always been defined. We were also told that homosexuals had the "same rights" as heterosexuals... to marry a member of the opposite sex.

I don't agree with those arguments, but at least they are arguments. There is a thesis there to debate.

But what argument can be possibly made against allowing gay men and women to serve in the military? The idea that they will disrupt discipline because heterosexuals won't want to shower with them is ludicrous.

Soldiers do all sorts of things that are totally unnatural to them (like killing others and exposing themselves to being killed) because that is their duty. If ordered to serve alongside openly gay soldiers, they will get over it.

[BruceHNV]

Not "will get..." The proper tense is "have gotten..."