iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Lt. Dan Choi

GET UPDATES FROM Lt. Dan Choi

Repealing DADT -- It's Your Turn President Obama

Posted: 09/10/10 10:45 AM ET

I commend Judge Phillips, Alex Nicholson and the Log Cabin Republicans for their firm stance in defense of the First Amendment and their unwavering support of our national security. I demand President Obama and Senator Reid do the same, as our moral obligations compel us to strike down injustice and discrimination wherever it exists.

Judge Phillips has forthrightly exercised her unquestionable moral authority and lived up to her mandate to defend our constitution against a most vicious domestic enemy: discrimination against honest Americans. At a time when patriots suffer oppression for simply expressing truth and love, it is morally repugnant for any leader to delay justice based on self-interested timelines of political expediency.

I implore President Obama and his Justice Department to refuse lifting a finger, refrain from wasting any energy, statements, or money defending "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the court system. His constitutional and moral obligations are most compelling at this historic time.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 654
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
10:55 PM on 09/21/2010
As an OIF veteran, my biggest disappointment is that the DADT issue was strapped to Defense Authorization bill FY2011 to provide more supplies for our deployed troops.

We can argue until we are blue in the face about DADT w/o coming to a compromise or solution. My attempted redirection here is that DADT should not have been tacked on to this bill. IMO, DADT is no where near as urgent or important as continuing to fund our troops. The 1st time in almost 50 years it has not been passed thanks to the DADT agenda.

Reports back in 2004 estimate homosexuals make up less than 3% of US Military (2.8). http://www.urban.org/publications/411069.html
How about passing a bill that supports 100% of the troops!!!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AxelDC
04:01 PM on 09/14/2010
DADT will be repealed now, not because of moral courage, but because DOD is afraid of getting sued once the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional.

If Congress changes the law, then those wrongly fired have no recourse. If the SC declares that DADT is unconstitutional, then those whose careers were ruined are eligible for backpay, lost benefits and punitive damages.

Sec Gates called for DADT to be repealed last Friday based on this fear.
11:34 AM on 09/17/2010
Don't hold your breath. DADT will not be repealled because it is working nicely.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mtgurl
11:07 AM on 09/14/2010
Choi, when you say 'serve openly' what exactly is the definition?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tinsldr2
Retired Army Officer
08:25 AM on 09/14/2010
As a recently retired Army Officer I wonder if we are going to give Soldiers full constitutional rights now?

For example, in my civilian job I could cuss out my boss, or say anything I want, and the worst that happens is I get fired. If you do that in the Army you could literally go to jail but mostly you will forfeit pay you worked for and haev to do extra duty work without extra pay. Further as an active Duty Officer there are severe restrictions on derogatory remarks made about the President and certain other elected officials.

Will freedom of speech now overturn those rules? Will Private Soldiers be able to talk back to their Senior officers?

In the Army overweight people can not join, can not get promoted if they are in and can get discharged even if they are otherwise capable and can pass the other parts of the fitness test (running 2 miles, pushups, situps etc) is that a violation of their rights? What about Single parents that are not allowed to join?

I support gay marriage and am not opposed to gays in the military but the constitution says Congress shall " make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

The courts have ALWAYS given large latitude to Congress in making the laws for that governance and regulation even when it violated rights a civilian would hold sacred.
This issue should also be decided by Congress.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AxelDC
04:03 PM on 09/14/2010
Congress cannot discriminate against soldiers based on issues unrelated to military service. Weight and insubordination are still considered important factors in military service.

Your post is one giant red herring, since you know that Congress can't pass a law banning Jews from military service.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:04 PM on 09/13/2010
For all the people who are bashing Obama on this issue? Do you want real change or do you want to hand the control of the government back to the repugs?

If Obama were to overturn the LAW that is DADT, the backlash  might hand the 2012 election over to the repugs. How long do you think that the new repug president is going to wait before reversing that executive order?

The new repug president might just sign the order between the oath and the inauguration speech.

The 2012 election is going to be about the Kennedy and Scalia seats on the Supreme Court.

Are you willing to give the country over to the reichies for another two generations to get 2 years of DADT repeal?

Don't believe me? Check out the video of the Prop H8 campaign where they showed Gavin Newsome gloating about gay marriage. That commercial turned the election.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Kellerman
Let's have more sanity toward each other
03:01 PM on 09/13/2010
If you had pointed out that it is before the Senate to deal with now, and urged Obama to speak up to the Senate about passing the end of DADT, I would agree.
Unfortunately the "Kenyan" Obama is hamstrung by the situation, because being for Gay rights makes him a foreigner to many swing voters -- he cannot stay in office with just Democrats voting for him.
The Supreme Court was the big issue in 2000, when the Dems ran an extremely crappy campaign, allowing the vote to be close enough for the Florida manuever to be pulled.
--- thus, I don't blame all our woes on the Repubs, as they got a free pass into the White House, with their half-witted president backed by crazed plutocrats.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:31 PM on 09/13/2010
Do you live in California?

If not, check out how the repugs pushed through Prop H8. it's the recipe for repug victory everywhere. 

God, gays and guns. It works.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joelb5000
05:00 PM on 09/13/2010
Are you suggesting that after fighting for Obama to win the last election we should be content with mediocrity? Seriously? We shouldn't want DADT overturned? Are you insane?!!!!!

God, go consider your hypothetical scenarious somewhere else please.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:46 PM on 09/13/2010
My goodliness, you are a bit excitable...

You seemed to miss the whole point of my post:

Answer this question-are you willing to give the country over to the republican party for the next 2 or three generations to get a temporary 2-year hold on DADT?

I don't pose hypotheticals, I am stating the facts of real life.

Can you answer the question posed above?
12:43 PM on 09/13/2010
"Why aren't we strengthining Obama?"
Only Obama can do that by making decisive moves and doing the right thing.
Gays didn't take Obama down - a year of kissing Republican butt, getting screwed over for it, and losing the debate on healthcare did.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:14 PM on 09/14/2010
In 1980, the repugs were willing to-and did-commit treason to get Reagan elected.

The October surprise.

They knew that Reagan had dementia and they didn't care. They wanted the Supreme Court.

The stakes in 2012 is a 7-2 Supreme Court and 50 years of "Citizens United" and "Bush v. Gore"
"Law".

DADT, gay rights, gay marriage can easily be the straw that breaks the camel's back and hands the next 2 elections over to the repugs.

Mr. Obama has to live in the real world. He not only has to deal with the repugs mucking up his agenda, but the Blue Dogs as well.

You can be a back burner issue with the Democrats, or you can be completely irrelevant with the repugs. Take your choice.
12:58 PM on 09/15/2010
"DADT, gay rights, gay marriage can easily be the straw that breaks the camel's back."
The camel's back was broken by being a WEAK president and letting the blue dogs and the Republicans walk all over him while cutting backroom deals with the insurance companies. By being a president who failed to act quickly and decisively when the entire Gulf Coast was endangered by an oil leak. How could the WH have been so stupid after seeing how Katrina took out Bush?. His insufficient stimulus plan - thanks to bad advice from the lousy appointments of Summers and Geitner - money was wasted propping up bloated state governments drowning in debt caused by exorbitant early retirements for teachers and clerks instead of self-advertising infrastructure projects.
You want to hang Obama's current political crisis on gays?
Well, I have two words for you and one of them won't get by the censors.
11:49 AM on 09/13/2010
I'm torn on this. It's absolutely a civil rights issue. Gays and lesbians should be able to serve in the military. Many already serve with honor.

The issue seems to be used as a weapon against the only President who's repeatedly stated that he'll repeal the DADT law. The POTUS is unfairly being targeted as a result of high expectations.

To get this done you have to push hard when the coals are hot. For example, Jim Crow in the South would not have ended without a contentious time where blacks, whites and others pushed for legislative changes. Those changes caused loss of life for some participators and economic or social discomfort.

A better strategy is to fight HARD to elect legislators that pledge to move DADT into the history books. The supports of DADT are benefiting from the attacks against President Obama. None of the Tea Party candidates will do very much to progress the plight of the GLBT community, let alone pass a law to repeal DADT.

President Obama could write an order to end DADT . It would give his detractors ammunition, and for naught. I say that because the next President in office can rescind it.

Action is needed in Congress. Vote out those that don't support gay rights.

As Lt Choi has quoted, " Injustice Anywhere Is a Threat to Justice Everywhere."

Why aren't we strengthening Obama? He needs political capital for change. Why attack the only POTUS that will repeal DADT ?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AxelDC
04:07 PM on 09/14/2010
85% of Americans support the repeal of DADT, up from 75% when Obama was elected. It doesn't take a lot of political courage to repeal a policy that 7/8 Americans oppose.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:19 PM on 09/14/2010
"Repeal" requires Congress passing laws, and Mr. Obama can't get that because of the Blue Dogs.

Mr. Obama doesn't control the courts.

All he could do is sign an executive order, which will be overturned the minute that the next repug president takes the oath.

Real change comes slowly.

By the way, that number is very, very soft. It's about who votes, not who gets polled.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quillerm
10:24 AM on 09/13/2010
As a combat veteran I can attest that soldiers want hard core, honest, smart people serving with them. We also respect each others privacy. As long as the soldier does his/her job and doesn't openly engage in embarrassing conduct which could reflect badly on the US Armed Forces all is well.
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
09:00 PM on 09/12/2010
Why does this topic always get dragged out for election time? Does it perhaps help Republicans get elected?
09:56 PM on 09/12/2010
Dragged out, are you serious? This topic has been going on daily ever since it was enacted. Sorry professor, but perhaps its you who's getting dragged out for election time.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:54 AM on 09/14/2010
Yes, it's serious. If you study what the repugs did in 2008 to get Prop H8 passed, you will see how easy it is to manipulate the public on the gay issue.

DADT is generally a non-issue outside of the gay world. It flares up in election years. 


They want the House, Senate, and statehouses this election because of redistricting. 

They want the Presidency in 2012 because of the Supreme Court. 

God, Guns, and Gays. It works.
08:59 PM on 09/12/2010
So - if society decides I have to shower and share a room (or foxhole) with a man who is attracted to men, does that mean I get to shower and share a room with women who serve? Or do they have a higher right to privacy than I do? It was tough and expensive to put women into the field (in addition to productivity killing since in general they have 50% - 60% less upper body strength than men) but at least you could just set up one other area of segregated housing - will the women now live with gay men or will gay men each get their own private room? It is part of the human condition that we are sexual - how do you separate it out and control it in the extreme conditions of combat? Don't ask, don't tell works.
09:58 PM on 09/12/2010
You're assuming that:

1) all women are attracted to you
2) you are attracted to all women
3) physical attraction is the only attraction

You may want to revisit some general logic classes before you go any further. You'll only hurt yourself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tinsldr2
Retired Army Officer
11:44 AM on 09/14/2010
Actually he is factually correct and you are obfuscating the issue oktober.

I am a happily married heterosexual man and have never assaulted, raped or sexually harassed a Female or Male.

When I was in the Army I could walk to into a male communal shower at any time, I frequently did not get to pick who I had for a roommate or a tent mate and had little expectation of privacy.

The female Soldiers and officers were under the same constraints.

But even though there were plenty of females that I was NOT attracted to at all, I could not walk into the female shower, and when I was the Company Commander I could not assign myself to sleep in the female barracks in Kosovo or an all female tent in a field training exercise. Why? Some of the women would not be bothered by me in the same room as them when they changed but It would severely effect the morale of SOME OF the females in the unit if I could do those things.

Many Soldiers would be FINE with openly gay individuals. many Soldiers would NOT be.

However there is simply no difference between me with a sexual preference for woman going in a female shower and a male with a sexual preference for males going in a male shower.

The end result is policies will be put in place and the Army will adopt but that does not mean the concerns were not real.
11:02 PM on 09/12/2010
Gay men and lesbians are already serving in the military and just might be serving right there in the foxhole next to you. DADT is a hypocrital policy that allows gays to serve their county so long as they lie about their sexual orientation. Imagine having to lie about something so fundamental to your nature just so you can serve your country. Lifting the ban on gays in the military should change nothing as far as who is in foxhole next to you. However, the military would save money in that they would not have to train replacements for perfectly good soldiers that have been discharged because of their sexual orientation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lmlynley
08:53 PM on 09/12/2010
The republicans have more gay members in congress than a San Francisco bath house on a Friday night. And, they know that we LGBT's are pissed, really pissed, at Obama. Unless they are complete morons (which is certainly possible), they will kick the bible-thumpers out and Bring In The Gays!
Then, I'll vote republican.
Why?
Because the "progressives" are defending cultures with religious doctrines that if practised in the western world would cause them to riot in the streets: e.g.; female genital mutilation, overt oppression of women and children, state-sanctioned murder of gays and lesbians, blood diamonds, and continuing horrors of slavery practised throughout the Moslem World. They twist young minds with extreme beliefs to the degree that they strap on a C4 vest as a means of appeasing their god. Add to this the fact that Obama has thrown the LGBTer's under every bus, train, car, and scooter he can find, and you have the makings of a mass political exodus if the democrats don't grow a spine and proviide equal rights to ALL! Don't hold your breath!
But, the republicans will likely hold on to the Beck and Palin psychosis and continue to be the laughing stocks of civilised society. We are fighting fanatical religious theocracies in the Middle-east, surely we don't need a faction of a Christian version of this social cancer in our society.
I'm just saying.
08:41 PM on 09/12/2010
Patience, Lt. Choi. Help is on the way. President Obama has said so. So, unless you doubt the veracity of his promise, it's time to look beyond this single issue; it's time to take up other causes of social justice, as well.
09:07 PM on 09/12/2010
"unless you doubt the veracity of his promise"

At this point, who DOESN'T doubt the veracity of his promise? And why should Lt. Choi take up some "other cause" when the one he cares about is ignored? Should Katrina victims simply move on? Should people seeking to close Gitmo just move on?
08:09 AM on 09/13/2010
I suggest you find a more devoted presidential candiate when you pull the lever in 2012. Until then, you needn't pull in the kitchen sink on an overwhelmed president. For folks like you, the concept of progress, i.e., slow and steady evolution, has died. You want the instant gratifications of your hand-held device in our government. Social justice is never won that way; it's about slow and persistant struggle. Grow up!
11:02 PM on 09/12/2010
What is the basis of trust in Obama? He has to be held accountable or he doesn't take progressive actions during election season (and the rest of the time he's not interested in progressive action at all).
romano70
If conservatives were smart, they'd be liberals
10:02 AM on 09/13/2010
Agree. If Republicans finally kicks the fundamentalist fascists-Christian movement and embraces gay marriage I will vote Republican with all my heart. I feel betrayed by the Democrats.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sukiposeyzena
08:30 PM on 09/12/2010
Gang members are allowed to serve in the military and learn tactical skills to bring back to their violent filled communities. Someone who is gay or lesbian citizen of this country is kicked out of the military if they "tell." I am sickened by this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
No more tiny coffins
04:22 PM on 09/13/2010
And, don't forget, they don't even have to "tell". Someone can get p*$$ed and out them, someone can just call someone gay and institute the process of an investigation, commanders can monitor emails. So DADT is and has been a joke since the beginning.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:24 PM on 09/14/2010
There was also a case in South Dakota where a lesbian couple was visited by the police.

The police noted that one of the women was in the Air Force and-for no legal reason whatsoever -the police notified the USAF.

The Airman was discharged under DADT.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PresidentRobertBooth
06:26 PM on 09/12/2010
Lt. Choi's appearances on the Rachel Maddow show are always a highlight.

It's an outrage that a qualified and capable soldier is being forced out of the armed forces simply due to bigotry.
09:11 PM on 09/12/2010
And just who should you be outraged AT? The Democrat Bill Clinton is the one who SIGNED the law, and the Democrat Barack Obama is the one who promised to overturn it. If he then does NOTHING about it, it could only mean it isn't any sort of PRIORITY for him.

Face it - Obama really only cares about making the UNIONS happy. Everything else is just a distraction.
10:06 PM on 09/12/2010
Rob, what's wrong with making unions happy? Second, what exactly is this "everything else" that you speak of that is a distraction. Thirdly, what is it a distraction from. You're speaking very vaguely, like a politician.

In response to your rant, there's nothing wrong with being upset with a decision, after all, it looks like DADT will be overturned, which is good. President Obama still has two years in office, if he did everything in the first day he was President why does his term need to be four years long?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PresidentRobertBooth
11:55 PM on 09/12/2010
***And just who should you be outraged AT? The Democrat Bill Clinton is the one who SIGNED the law, and the Democrat Barack Obama is the one who promised to overturn it. If he then does NOTHING about it, it could only mean it isn't any sort of PRIORITY for him***

I'm outraged at anyone who supports DADT

***Face it - Obama really only cares about making the UNIONS happy. Everything else is just a distraction***

Unions have no relevance to this issue. A good president can handle multiple issues at the same time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balancement
Timendi causa est nescire. -- Seneca
06:25 PM on 09/12/2010
"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

--Barry Goldwater (of all people!)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wizer
No more tiny coffins
04:23 PM on 09/13/2010
As a reminder, Barry Goldwater has a gay grandson.