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 As Federal law, DADT must be repealed by Congress.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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I love you John Ridley....
The utter stupidity of DADT was illustrated by the number of military translators discharged from the service. We should never tolerate government sponsored discrimination of any kind.
Very salient point. We need translators in critical languages and we dismiss those with that rare skill because of their sexual orientation. That makes sense.
But, wait! The washington post is reporting that President-Elect Obama isn't going to let this happen for a few years... After not speaking out more adamantly against Prop 8, how can this be???
As a gay man I can say that I am growing very frustrated by his lack of leadership on gay rights. If he if going to live up to his word, he should just do it. Why drag your feet? Especially when you are losing thousands of valuable, talented, knowledgeable soldiers and translators in a time of war!
And as for attacking DADT... If Clinton hadn't pushed that then, we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation right now. Give him some credit.
Well, Obama is straight. The movement and the force has to come from the gay circles. Obama is a politician, he may be pretty liberal, but he is not stupid. He has a lot of tough problems to solve and he is not going to waste too much political capital on divisive issues. I just think that is the reality.
Barrack Obama has said he is against gay marriage. And if even he is flexible on that, he wasn't going to say so during the election and he certainly wasn't going to come out strong against Prop 8 and risk alienating the Black evangelical vote which he had been courting since he was traveling around SC with Donnie McClurkin.
I find it hard to imagine black evangelicals voting for McCain.
So gays are allowed in the military. So what? Allowances for dependents are based on marriage, ie authorization to mess separately, housing allowance, base housing, medical coverage, dental, etc. So you can serve, big deal. But you're still discriminated against because the military won't recognize your partner. So go back to the drawing board, fight for gay marriage, and after that gets approved, the military issue should fall into place. But don't even think for a moment just because you're gay and serve in the military that you won't have discrimination (ie benefits for your partner)..
USAF (RET)
If you want YOUR issue to be the NUMBER ONE Issue, then run and get elected on that platform.
Otherwise, vote for the better man, and give him room to breathe and enact his agenda.
In the meantime, keep the pressure on. He's on your side...
You're way more optimistic than I am. I don't doubt that Obama would like to push a policy for opening up of the military to gays, but I don't think he will spend any political capital to do so. Don't Ask was an act of Congress and needs another Congressional act to overturn it. Obama is going to use much of his capital on health care and the economy. I don't think Obama will go to bat on gay issues. If anything, the prop 8 passage will probably signal to him that he needs to be even more distant on the issue.
He was never really there for the community, I don't expect that to change. (By the way, we need hate crimes legislation as well as employment protection more than military change.)
So there is no "legal" justification for this - the aim is societal. And the "equal rights" clauses in our Constitution for which they seek are already in place. So, again, why was Proposition 8 bigoted, when it was clearly legal and Constitutional - in a nation created under the laws of nature's God, and nature's God did not provide procreation abilities to same sex couples biologically? Nor were the founder's who wrote of a Creator intending equal rights, other than "legal" rights for all?
Prior to the states requiring "licenses" for marriage, the clergy performed them and they were then simply recorded with the local officials in order to declare rights of inheritance. So, if gays want legal "equal rights," may the only change needed in order to protect primarily the children of the "domestic union" is for those insemination and/or adoption papers to be recorded with the state and local officials in the event of a dissolution of the parenting partnership.
"in a nation created under the laws of nature's God".
You've obviously never read any of the Federalist Papers. If you had you'd know that 'nature's God' is NOT YOUR CHRISTIAN GOD.
Plus, it's obvious from that omission, and the language you used in your 'argument' that you're arguing that this nation is a Christian nation.
Wrong and wrong. Both counts.
Sorry. I see right thru your ruse.
Divorce used to be illegal too, God hates divorce let's do away with it it is bad for kids and society.If we are going to live biblically lets go all the way. Sex before marriage? I think that is punishable by death. Living together without marriage? Forget it. When we speak about God's laws of nature it would be helpful to know what we are talking about. 250 species of animal exhibit homosexual behavior, it would appear that unless you think they have made that CHOICE then homosexuality is natural under God's plan. Geez living biblically I sure will miss shrimp! As Thomas Jefferson said if my neighbor worships 10 gods or none at all it doesnt matter - it doesnt affect me.
What a loaded article full of propaganda. You cannot legislate social acceptance no matter how hard you try, and the gay rights advocates aim is exactly that. You also cannot legislate the reformation of an institution that goes back literally 2,000 years. There is not only religious doctrine involved, but also biology. You can argue your case until you are blue in the face, but since the same sex cannot procreate on it's own, marriage as an institution, both legally and religiously, was intended to not only protect the rights of inheritance, but establish the legitimacy of the progency of the marital partnership. Since gays cannot biological give birth without medical intervention, the legitimacy of their parenthood is secured through adoption procedures, or insemination procedures. Insofar as the arguments on "visitation rights' in hospitals, and legal rights of inheritance, etc., HIPPA laws notwithstanding, anyone can give a "power of attorney" to another individual to both handle their affairs in the event of incapicitation, or will their property to whomever they choose. The tax laws also provide for Head of Households, which protects both gay parental partnerships and single parents.
Betsy, honey, what part of the word "equal" don't you understand?
They fight and die for you as well. They fight for our freedom and yet are seen as second class citizens by the country they fight for. That's not a 'gay rights' issue, it's a common decency issue, show some respect.
"You cannot legislate social acceptance no matter how hard you try, and the gay rights advocates aim is exactly that." Yes you can. How about a woman's right to vote. How about blacks getting to vote.
Both were institutionally unavailable due to prevailing cultural 'norms'. Do women vote now? Do blacks vote now? Let's see. The correct answer is that LEGISLATIVELY they are now allowed to do so.
You are also creating a strawman about marriage. Marriage is far older than 2000 years. You seem to think it is an institution that was created out of whole cloth without any changes because of the Christian church - which btw, is NOT 2000 years old, but rather is ONLY 1700 years old. Councel of Nicea. Look it up.
But I digress.
Marriage is FAR FAR older than 2000 years and was originally an exchange of GOODS. Women were CHATTEL. Objects. Marriages were originally ARRANGED. And most marriages - in the Bible - were multiple ones. And I don't mean serial monogamy either. Wow, you really don't know anything, do you.
What about all those straight people who need medical intervention to have children. Your argument LOGICALLY must extend to them.
I have gay friends who have children thru straight marriages and thru surrogates. I guess there goes your argument that gays can't procreate. Really, what do you actually know?
Stop it already with this ridiculous notion that you are smarter than us.
"You cannot legislate social acceptance no matter how hard you try, and the gay rights advocates aim is exactly that. "
Actually, it isn't. Gays don't really care what you think of them as long as they are allowed to live their own lives with the same rights and privileges as everyone else. You see, it isn't about YOU. (Or your marriage.)
That said, historically legislated and court-enforced civil rights have in fact led, indirectly and over time, to social acceptance. For example, children of all colors who grew up attending desegregated schools were able to vote for Obama with barely a thought about his color and never a thought about whether or not he had any inherent right to that position.
I agree with you - "You cannot legislate social acceptance no matter how hard you try," but you can legislate 'equal rights' - I believe it's in the constitution. I hate to bring up the same old argument but the Bible thumping southern brothers and sisters said that slavery is inherent in the bible and "God" this and "God" that - but, this country was not based on religion it was based on LAWS. People forget that our forefathers were not all religious men they were enlightened men. So, if you want to live in a country that is based on religion go create one, but America is not it no matter how much you want it to be it is not. God bless.
The beginning of the 'Age of Obama' should usher in some major changes for the better. Men and women, no matter their sexual persuasion, should feel free to be themselves while fighting for and guarding our country. The notion of gay people attempting to indoctrinate the heterosexual population has long been debunked. Americans need to kick back and allow people to be themselves in all circumstances - as long as they don't harm others and break the law.
Obviously you have never been in the military. The military requires discipline and no one is "free to be themselves". I thought don't ask, don't tell was a good compromise because it says keep it to yourself. Noone needs to know your sexual preference. This is about troop morale which is critical.
If no one needs to know your sexual orientaton, then I hope you do not talk about your wife or girlfriend while serving. I think that would illustrate being "free to be yourself" and It wouldn't be good for my morale while I'm fighting for my country with my mouth shut!
Yes. And as it turns out, troop morale is best in units where gays serve openly.
I t hink the scare for alot of people has to do with how prevelent homosexuality was in the Greek and Roman and many African cultures such as persia, it was literally an institution, in those cultures heterosexual sex was for procreating, I think the lingering stigma from those times have affected the way people view homosexuality, actually young men were indoctrinated into that lifestyle and behavior because it was part of the culture even if they were heterosexual by nature.
Yeah that's good but they should have separate bathrooms and latrines for gays just like for women and men. If they however have unisex bathrooms and showers I could get behind supporting homosexuals in the military. After all it's only fair.
You are an uninformed i d i o t!
Hey new flash!! they are showing with them now.
Totally agree, and I would add separate dorms and baracks areas as well.
I suspect from the apparent tone of your comment that you're trolling, but I'm going to bite just in case I'm wrong.
I think that equating a difference in gender with a difference in sexual orientation is fundamentally misleading. A colleague of mine, ex Royal Navy, ex-submariner, once waxed lyrical to me on how while he wasn't homophobic there was one area in which he could not feel comfortable, and that was sharing close quarters - sleeping areas, showers - with men who were gay.
For a while I believed what he was saying, for the simple reason I equated it to how I, as a woman, would feel sharing living space that intimately with men.
Then I woke up and realised that I would (and do) have no problem sharing my living space with lesbians. What misled me about the possible validity of my colleague's views was that I had mistakenly equated it to different genders sharing living space. What freaked me about the male/female divide was the physical strength differential and the threat of sexual violence. While I'm not naive enough to believe this doesn't exist among people of the same gender, I'm not sure it's quite as widely-assumed. Which leads me to think this fear of sharing living space is actually to do with phobia and/or hatred more than anything else.
The solution is to take "don't ask don't tell" and apply the concept to same sex marriage.
It will be interesting to see the position the newly elected Aaron Schock of Illinois takes on this issue.
maybe obama could do something about women being sexually harassed and assaulted in the military as well. it's another unfortunately common problem that the military is keen to cover up.
And, then being denied information on their ability to get an abortion -- if they pay for it. I hope the entire military culture changes with the infusion of gays and lesbians and with the change in the archaic rule that doesn't allow women to serve in combat brigades.
werdiness, women being sexually assaulted and harassed in the military is FAR more common than is the fear by straight men or being harassed and sexually assaulted by gays in the military.
Assaults involving gay men usually involve gay men being assaulted by bigotted straight men.
Those assaults are covered up by the military as well.
Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, STRAIGHT MEN are the ones committing the assaults in both instances.
So, does that mean that only women and gay men should serve? Statistics seem to show that they are the problem. Are straight men more prone to violence against their comrades??
what irony. he's all for letting us enlist and die for our country but he doesn't support our marriage equality.
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At least some of you here get the message and thank you.
Excellent article. Thank you and you are 100% right on !
The argument against gays in the military are essentially equivalent to the ones against blacks in the military. They all boil down to "prejudiced soldiers will be uncomforta
Good post, rj!
I knew that someone would make the comparison to the integration of blacks but this is entirely different. This issue is closer to the reason that we don't house women in the same baracks or dorms with men. Would you call women who don't want to bunk with men "prejudiced"?
you assume wrongly that gay men are unable to act and participate at all levels of society with professionalism and honor.
No I wouldn't and I agree, ENOUGH with comparing the civil rights struggle of blacks for equality with that of gays and lesbians! I'm sick of people comparing apples with oranges.
I'm a black male who voted for Obama and AGAINST Prop 8 in Calif because regardless of my feelings on the issue, and I do have some very strong ones, I believe in equal protection under the law. Now having said that why not remove marriage from the vernacular and call it a civil union. In your faith or religion you can call it whatever you want but as far as the government it should be equal.
If I thought your fear was straight soldiers are going to overpower gay soldiers and have their way with them, then you might have a point--a laughable point--but a point. But my guess is that your fear is that those nasty gay soldiers would overpower the straight soldiers. And now I'm really laughing.
I have houseplants smarter than you.
Or that straight men would be too tempted.
Nice piece!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
