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 As Federal law, DADT must be repealed by Congress.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

[nickyhartzell]

PLEASE, not the gays in the military thing again, the minute a president hits office. I have absolutely nothing against gays in the military, that's not the point. But it was exactly this topic that derailed the first 100 days of Bill Clinton's presidency. It completely drove him off course. It's a right-wing "bomb" subject. Spare Obama being burdened with this right off the bat. Of course, he'll address it at some point. But there are other, more pressing, huge issues to deal with first. This is a trap. Let's get our economy right, go green, get people working. Then when things are more secure, this can roll on through. Love and peace. NH

[gaydm]

Obama can not do anything about it, except sign the bill that the congress sends him that repeals DADTDP anyway. He may ask the military to ignore DADTDP but he can not magically make it go away. No president has that power as it is federal law. As a gay man I have no problem with Congress and the president taking all the time they need to get rid of DADTDP. I will just do as I have been doing and tell my gay friends who are thinking of joining the military to just wait till it's gone before they join. Why waste your good talents in a place that does not want you when other options are available. Let the military scrape the bottom of the barrel to get what they need to fill the ranks. Maybe it will be better for the country that way.

[MsLiz]

That was an awful way to begin Clinton's presidency. I remember thinking what the hell are they doing? In retrospect, Clinton didn't know what the hell he was doing.

[BinKbar]

- the passage of the bigoted Prop 8 in California only demonstrates the glacial pace the acceptance of Sexual Orientation moves -

So, only 'bigots' voted for Prop 8?
Therefore 75% of the Blacks in Cal are 'bigots'? Who knew?

[Balancement]

Phew! The talking-points from the Right-Wing blogs is carrying all the way over here!

[Balancement]

That should read "The *stench* from the Right-Wing blogs ..." Sorry, just washed my fingers and can't do a thing with 'em.

[BinKbar]

Well? Are they?

[pcjnyc]

Of course they are bigots. What else what you call them?

[PitBull6]

I would call them people who disagree with either gay marriage or a court trying to create law where it did not exist.

[Heru1]

people who disagree with you

[BruceHNV]

As to homosexuality, yes - that was a bigoted vote. What - a black person can't practice intolerance in areas of their life just like a white person?

[BobSF94117]

Let's see.... if only 2% of the vote had gone the other way, Prop 8 would have failed.

What percentage of the Yes vote do YOU think consisted of bigoted voters?

Less than 2%?

[bbc3341]

Anyone who is willing to put their life on the line for our country and our freedom doesn't only deserve the right to serve, they deserve our respect and support. And if there are people in the military who have an issue serving with homosexuals, is the solution really to banish the homosexual? I mean does that sound even remotely right? How about enlightening those with the prejudices?

All this talk of distraction, I mean yeah, anyone whose BEHAVIOR is a distraction, OK, I get it. But our gay brothers and sisters are no more likely to be a distraction than our straight ones.

[Blain]

If someone is staring at you while you are in the shower or getting dressed it might be seen as a "distraction". Obama's priority cannot be to pick a fight with the military over this. B Clinton already made that mistake which is how we got DADT. It was a compromise because the military was against it. Colon Powell resgned partly over this issue.

[Balancement]

Um, that's "Colin" Powell--not "colon." Freudian slip much? That tells me all I need to know about what your problem is.

[luvobama]

Excuse me, but i have been stared at by lecherous heteros for years. Not all men are swine. Not all men want you. Stop it with the hysteria. Se xu al harassment has been going on since the beginning of time 99% of the time by straight men. Get over yourself.

[bbc3341]

I don't think so, because as a straight man I'm not in any sense attracted to other men, so I don't really care what they think of me. In fact, at this point, I'll take any positive feedback I can get!!!

I mean, the distraction could be, "hey, why ISN'T he looking at me... just kidding. I just think that as a society we are beyond this stuff, or at least we should be.

[PitBull6]

Actually, there is no inherent "right" to serve. Put bluntly, the military discriminates. It discriminates based on sexual orientation, sex, height, weight, age, physical ability, intelligence and even against those with disabilities.
But those who serve deserve our respect and support, as you say.

[Scarlet]

Yeah..thats why they comb shopping malls and Walmart for recruits (even people have been in prison)...very discriminating..

[Bluedrgn]

As others here have pointed out, the only problem with gays in the military is things like bay showers and such... and yes I know they are just there in secret now, whatever, I dont care. They either need to go through the trouble/expence of creating private facilities or need to just say to heck with it and throw all men and women into shared facilitues (like in Starship Troopers), which I'm all for.

Let the egg throwing commence...

[PitBull6]

I agree totally. It's an all or none proposition. Either everyone will be forced to become comfortable or everyone will have private facilities. The latter is far more expensive but the former will be harder politically because I am willing to bet that it will reduce female recruitment and retention, which would draw a lot of fire from feminists.

[Jkairi]

that is absurd. it is like saying there should be separate lockerooms at the gym.>>>

They're are separate lockerooms, they're called Mens and Womens. Men don't go into female lockerooms. Women deserve to have their privacy as do straight men.

Gay men have no business showering with straight men, period. You shouldn't want to impose that on straight people.

[Balancement]

Jkairi, don't worry--we won't laugh at your inadequacies. Well, not while in the shower anyway. Maybe later.

[MagicalPossibilities]

Homophobic much?
I'm a straight woman. There are more than a few lesbians at my gym. Doesn't bother me in the least to share a locker room with them.

[luvobama]

No kidding. Little do these let than well endowed men know, they have been sharing bathrooms and showers for years. They really think their stuff is special. LOL.

[PitBull6]

But you must realize that just because it's not an issue to you, it still may be an issue to others, right? By extension, it becomes a command and policy issue.

[SethBLiNK]

So a person who is courageaous enough to put his life on the line for his country won't find the courage to drop trou in the presence of a gay person. That's a little silly.

[geoff74024]

Jkairi -

Gay men and women serve now and shower with straight people now. This has been going on for years in your Armed Services. Armies in Europe (UK, Netherlands, German, Spain) all allow gay people to openly serve and have been doing so for many years without problems.

What is it exactly that is being imposed or being violated? Do you think that every gay person is sexually attracted to every straight person? Have you considered that when most people straight or gay want to take a shower, the only thing they really want to accomplish is to just take a shower?

Is it an issue about being naked?. In Europe, people of both sexes think nothing of being naked in front each other at the beach, pool or health spas. They are not self conscious. Being naked is not a sexually charged moment. It's just the body.

The reality is that gay people have been in the American military for years. Nothing is going to change that whatever your policy is. They have served honorably, with distinction and professionally. Americans need to acknowledge this. Moreover, If it's not causing any problems now, why not let them serve openly and without persecution? If you did, you'd find out what we have found here in Europe......your Armed Services will be absolutely fine and you will retain talented people.

[Bluedrgn]

geoff74024-

Do you think that every straight person is attracted to every member of the opposite sex? Yes, I'm sure people are primarly there just to take a shower, but if you are impling that a person would never ever check out the people in the shower I will call you a liar. It's about privacy and being comfortable... it is why we have seperate facilites for men and women...if your argument is that people should feel comfiratable with their nakedness etc, then we should do away with having seperate facilities for men and women too...

[BruceHNV]

He doesn't want telepathic gay cooties getting all in his space. He might catch something.

[luvobama]

Why not? Fire departments have gay men and straight men. They live together too. Why isn't their an outrage, you ask? Because the straight guys don't care and the ones like you would never hear the end of it if they started crying about someone seeing their stuff.

[coolbrotha00]

I served 20 years in the Navy on 2 ships, several years overseas, and across the us. In all that time I can't think of one duty station that didn't have gays serving. I'm straight and it never bothered me. I think the main reason is I respected them and demanded the same in return. Another is I never assumed they would feel the need to hit on me. The thought never crossed my mind. My focus was on the work I had to do. I think a lot of the people who oppose gays in the military do so because they assume/fear that someone of the same sex will be attracted to them. Usually that's not the case. Call it what you will, but they know who to hit on.

[gaydm]

I served 12 years in the Navy, 6 ships 2 shore stations, and not once did I do or try anything with anyone, gay or straight. I went in to do my job. When I was ashore or off duty and away from my base that was a different story. But I kept it quiet and respectful, and always it was with the full consent of the other party. I never caused a problem with my command, or other personnel.

[luvobama]

Now you've disappointed the lot of them. :)

[Antifascist-08]

This is another positive step in our cultural evolution. DADT was a necessary first step, and now that the military has "survived" a war with gays being more visible, there is no reason not to go ahead and make the whole thing official. Yes!

As a non gay who has worked in the music industry my whole life with people of every possible persuasion, I know that if you are around people different than yourself and you get to know them without all the politicking, things turn out just fine. You can't reason or legislate people into giving up their prejudices. It takes exposure and time to make these steps.

Having lived and worked with gays for my whole adult life and counting many of them as personal friends who were very saddened by the Mormon invasion for prop 8 here in CA, I can assure any trolls here who are still paranoid and hateful about gays that this is just another step toward enlightenment for this country and the world. Enjoy.

[Jeffersonian1]

I, too, am hopeful that President Obama's administration will be the one during which the disgraceful DADT policy that has diminished our defense capability will be officially ended. Gay men have been serving our nation in our military since we've had a military. Lesbians have been serving since women were permitted to join the services. A legal framework that requires such individuals "to pass" is not only antithetical to our national security interests, it is morally repugnant.

One of the worst kept secrets in the services, however, is that (irony or ironies) the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld regime, de facto, has already repealed DADT. The complete clusterf*ck that is the invasion of Iraq – from not needing to go in the first place to not knowing what the hell we were doing when we got there – has put such a strain on military recruiting and retention that enforcement of the policy is basically ceasing.

How about that Bush? It appears that the least negative elements of his legacy will be providing health care assistance to the desperately ill of Africa, socializing the banking industry of the United States, and permitting gays and lesbians to serve openly in our military. Certainly not all bad but probably not what Karl had been expecting.

[Blain]

You undercut your own argument. They are already serving so what is the problem? Americans didn't elect BO for this. We are in two wars and the US is bankrupt and the gays want Barack to pick a fight with the Pentagon? Insane!

[Jeffersonian1]

But if you read, you'll note I didn't argue that repeal should be a priority of the Obama administration, I only stated a hope that repeal occurs during his administration, simply because at this point it's both a morally indefensible and hypocritical statute. The President-elect has far too many god-awful messes to clean up from the Bush Administration to start reaching back and tidying up the Clinton Administration's foul ups.

That being said, you're not going to see much resistance from the Pentagon brass when repeal is considered. Those folks have gotten past it. The hoohaw will come from the Mormon Church, the devotees of Sara Palin, and the James Dobsons of the world.

[peachesmahoney]

It's a great thing to consider, the over turning of DADT but sadly that's where it will end. We live in anti-gay times and Obama knows better than to squash his current popularity by supporting gay marriage or abolishing DADT. Until the current climate changes towards the LGBT community, Obama will stay far away from this issue.

[moonflowerjewelry]

sure, you can fight for and die for our country, but you can't get married. sure, we can tax you, but you can't get married. i don't get this.

[sfsilver]

an the comments begin the nonsense - LGBT citizens are always told these days that it isn't convenient for our equality to be considered. Everyone says, "Don't make Clinton's mistake". or "Gay rights are too divisive". Imagine how divisive it is to be on the receiving end of the discrimination.

It isn't 1993 - this is nation that not only has demonstrably changed it's opinions about LGBT folks serving in the military , we also have body of research to back up the damage done by barring open and honest service, and an atmosphere where we need every talented patriotic person who is willing to serve to have that option, Gay or Straight. We also have a nation primed to accept REAL, Fundamental change.

NOW is the perfect timing.

[Balancement]

There *is* no wrong time for justice and equality. It's always the right time. And that time is NOW.

[BruceHNV]

From Palm Center in Santa Barbara:

"Study Examines Contributions of Gay Troops to Mideast Wars

"September 15, 2004 -- A new study released today is the first assessment of the impact of the gay ban on U.S. military effectiveness in recent Middle East wars. The study, by Dr. Nathaniel Frank, is titled "Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and Afghanistan Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

"The study concludes that gays and lesbians serve openly in the Middle East without undermining unit cohesion or the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. When gays are out, they report greater success in bonding, morale, professional advancement, levels of commitment & retention and access to essential support services.

"It also finds that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" impairs the capacity of gay troops to develop bonds of trust, minimize stress, prepare for deployment, focus on their mission, advance professionally and access support services, including medical & psychological consultations. And, these effects appear to have an impact not just on gays, but on those around them, by creating an atmosphere of dishonesty and distrust...

"Among the dozens of stories included in the study is that of Brian Hughes, a gay Army Ranger who was part of the task force that rescued Iraqi War POW Jessica Lynch...

"The study is based on thirty in-depth interviews with gay, lesbian and bisexual service members who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since Oct 7, 2001, as well as on field observations made stateside..."

[Balancement]

There you go again--trying to confuse the bigots with facts.

[BruceHNV]

I know - right? I don't know what comes over me...

[PitBull6]

A whole thirty interviews with gay service members? Out of a military popution of nearly 3 million, that's quite insignificant. And what about those who command those troops who have to deal with the issues that would arise after an implementation? Or their fellow troops?

I'm not particularly against lifting the ban, but that article and Ridley's op-ed piece assume way too much.

[Balancement]

Okay then, check with the 24 *nations* that allow gays and lesbians to serve in their armed forces. Seems to be working just fine there. Great Britain, Canada, Israel, Australia--nearly every NATO member in Europe--c'mon, tell us what you're REALLY afraid of.

[Jkairi]

It will be the begining of the end of Barrack presidency, he will be a one term president. Why on earth is necessary for openly gay men to want to serve with straight men. What is the real motive behind that?

What is wrong with "don't ask don't tell"? If you have openly gay men with straight men you must separate their facilities just like you would men and women. A straight man should not have to shower with an openly gay man in the same quarters.

[BruceHNV]

What is wrong is "Don't ask don't Tell" damages unit cohesion and morale.

Openly gay service members, and the units that contain them, are very successful.

[janinius]

that is absurd. it is like saying there should be separate lockerooms at the gym.

[BruceHNV]

Not a fair comparison.

In high school 35 years ago, my PE class showered with two gay classmates. They would often try to protect their modesty more than the rest of us did, but when they realized we were ignoring them, they got over it. Nobody messed with them, they never bothered us, and aside from the fact that both of them happened to be very poor athletes - and got the same ribbing anyone did who couldn't climb a rope, throw well, run fast or do many situps, pushups or pullups, - they did not stand out in any way.

There was only one lesbian girl (that we knew of) who had PE the same time we did, and the girls treated her the same way.

[PitBull6]

Oh, like there is for hetero men and women??? Either abolish separate facilities for the sexes altogether or accomodate the modesty needs of heteros if there is deemed a need.

[Geoffreys]

Currently Straight men currently shower alongside closeted gay men every day. Is that preferable?

[BruceHNV]

As it turns out, showering with gays, open or closeted, is not really an issue.

[BruceHNV]

Open gays serve now, and not in separate facilities. It is not a problem.

[Jkairi]

Open gays serve now, and not in separate facilities. It is not a problem.>>>

I disagree, you can't have openly gay people in close quarters with straight people. That's a problem. You're going to have big problems on your hands.

[Antifascist-08]

Grow up, Jkairi. The world is moving on now that the rethugs are in retreat.

I advise you to think about what Jesus would have said. Also, you might consider spending some time at a naturist (nudist) club, where everyone can shower together if they want.

:-)

[113]

Good, now next step protecting the rights of atheists in the military to not be discriminated against either.

[RockySoldier]

i know many, many, MANY atheists serving with me. their rights are ALWAYS mentioned when dealing with religious issues in my infantry unit. they're regarded well. you always have some jerk who casts aspersions on them, but even the chaplain lends credence to their right not to believe- he often offers his own doubts about God to help burgeon the argument of an atheist.

[RockySoldier]

starting off, i'll say that i'm an active soldier and don't have any problems serving with gay men and women. truth be told, they're serving now, so I don't see any point in telling them they can't be open about it. i don't care what people do when they're off duty. when they're on duty, as long as they can shoot straight and fulfill their job obligations and responsibilities, it's cool and the gang.

however, if president elect obama chooses to change the policy soon into his administration, he runs the risk of doing what president clinton did: make an enemy of the military. there is a feeling in the army that gays already serve and most people don't have a problem with them. but when it's a new president and his first actions are to change the social dynamic of an organization he's never been a part of, there are going to be inertia. you can't just push this issue. it's not politically correct, but i'm going to say it: gay activists are often their own worst enemies. they push their agenda at opportune times for themselves without consideration to the timing for those who would be impacted. please give careful thought to the process by which you consider implementing the new policy, president obama. your respect among the rank and file that voted for you is at stake.

[BruceHNV]

And how, pray tell, would he "change the policy soon in his administration" when it's a law passed by congress which will require a new law (also passed by congress) to change it?

Did someone say it would be an early priority of an Obama administration?

[RepugsOut08]

Many in the gay community, and posting on this article, are calling for Obama to move on this issue right now. Yes, it will take action by the Congress to pass it into law, but gays want Obama to assume leadership of the issue.
RockySoldier and folks like myself, are cautioning patience fom the gay community on this issue. Obama wasn't elected to implement a gay agenda. The economy must come first. A president Obama who has successfully handled the economic crisis, will have little trouble getting support for equal rights later on. Patience!

[williamdaw]

Bruce, as much as it pains me I have to agree with rockysoldier. being one of those gays in the military myself, i totally get where he is coming from. its a good post and i don't think he is saying that it will be an early priority, he's just saying do it, just do it smart.