Page 1 of 1
#1 Obama wants 'don't ask' repealed
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:14 pm
by frigidmagi
CNN
Sen. Barack Obama says if elected president he won't require that his appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff support allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
art.obama.smiling.gi.jpg
Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday a repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' is possible if he's elected.
The Democratic presidential front-runner told The Advocate, a gay magazine, that he wants to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays, which was instituted during the Clinton administration.
He said his priority for the Joint Chiefs will be that they make decisions to strengthen the military and keep the country safe, not their position on the policy.
"I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff," Obama said in an interview with The Advocate.
"But I think there's increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy," he said. Video Watch more of Obama's stance on Iraq »
"We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe."
The Advocate provided The Associated Press with excerpts of the interview, posted on its Web site Thursday.
The interview comes after Obama was criticized by gay advocates for not speaking to the gay media.
The Philadelphia Gay News last week ran a large blank space on its front page next to an interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton to highlight that he did not talk to the publication.
"The gay press may feel like I'm not giving them enough love, but basically all press feels that way at all times," Obama told The Advocate.
He said he's frequently spoken out against homophobia and in support of gay rights.
Asked what he could reasonably accomplish for the gay community as president, Obama said he can "reasonably see" repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as well as signing legislation to ban workplace discrimination against gays.
advertisement
He said he'd like transgendered people to be covered by the law, but thinks it would be tough to get such legislation through Congress.
Obama also said he's interested in ensuring that same-sex couples in civil unions get federal benefits.
#2
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:39 pm
by Hadrianvs
I had taken that for granted, he seems like a fairly pro-gay rights kind of guy, especially given his comments during the speech in MLK's church, but it's nice to see him say it officially. Clinton on the other hand, since she wants so much to be associated with her husband's accomplishments in the White House, I would really like to see here explain the Defense of Marriage Act.
#3
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:47 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
Hadrianvs wrote:I had taken that for granted, he seems like a fairly pro-gay rights kind of guy, especially given his comments during the speech in MLK's church, but it's nice to see him say it officially. Clinton on the other hand, since she wants so much to be associated with her husband's accomplishments in the White House, I would really like to see here explain the Defense of Marriage Act.
Indeed. That fucking bitch is going to do exactly what she has done to eveyone else. Use them, then throw them under a bus when convenient. As soon as the going gets tough, her support for me and mine will falter and be subsumed by her quest for power.
Not that I am thrilled with Obama on the matter either, but I would rather take a chance on him than The Hildebeast... at least with him I can have a conversation regarding why the same reasoning of Brown V. Board of Education doesnt apply to gays
#4
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:13 am
by Rukia
Maybe I'm not understanding this to the full exent, and I sure as hell don't advocate anything that Clinton did in office, but "the don't ask don't tell" policy seems ok to me. I am all for loving who you want, and alternative sexual orientation, but I'm not everyone. Obviously there are homophobic people out there or there would be no need for for that policy. I come from a family who is strictly against homosexuality and my grandfather was in the military, you do the math.
That being said, I don't think that repealing the "don't ask don't tell" is going to do any good. I had a flamboyantly gay friend of my mine walk into a recruitment office and they damn near laughed him out the door. It seems as though it doesn't really matter weather they ask or not. And if they do repeal it and more gay people sign up, there is still going to be problems in the barracks. Only now instead of being told to leave, they get to endure whatever backlash that the other (homophobic) recruits want to dish out.
#5
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:22 am
by frigidmagi
I can understand your point Rukia but let me give you a few things to consider.
I was a Marine, the Marine Corps is the most conservative branch of the service. We also get shot at the most. I had a gay machine gunner. He did his job. We covered for him. That suggests to me that it is possible for gays to serve in the military. They can't be allowed to sexually harass members of their units or other units, but that is the same problem that has to be dealt with in regards to female service members. No biggie.
As for the rest of it. They used that same song in regards to letting women in. They used it against racial integration and so on and so forth. Yeah, there will be problems. Yeah, there will friction. But it's gonna happen and it's best to get it done with.
#6
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:53 am
by Cynical Cat
As frigid has pointed out, the military has gays in it. Hell, my dad as a somewhat naive small town teenager in the 1950s knew there were a whole bunch of gays in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" didn't change that. What it did change was the number of people being drummed out of the military for being homosexuals. It went up, a lot and it stayed that way.
It hurts the military and it denies rights to homosexuals and it's just plain cruel. Also, the latest polls show something like more than 90% of soldiers don't have a problem with openly homosexual soldiers and just about every other western nation has integrated openly homosexual soldiers into their militaries with few problems.
#7
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:46 am
by General Havoc
I really don't have much of an opinion on DADT. It struck me as some kind of weird compromise between "let em in" and "don't", as struck by a president who really didn't care either way. Given everything though, and just looking at it pragmatically, are we really in a position where we want to be turning away willing, competent, qualified soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines? It's not like our military has a glut of recruits right now.
I don't see the policy as being evil or cruel, or at least not motivated by such things. The military in general comprises, and I am not bashing it to say this, a morass of petty indignities that simply come with the territory. As many have said, the military is not the place to be practicing social equality. However if the policy is actually causing more harm than good, which seems obvious at this point, then it may be time to let it go.
#8
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:02 pm
by Cynical Cat
It's cruel because its a lie. It was supposed to be a compromise that meant "okay we still aren't officially allowing gays in the military, but we won't look very hard to find them." Instead it prompted waves of searching. When the military needs fighting men, it doesn't even pretend to care. It's not about morale or unit integrity, because when push comes to shove they'll take them. It's about hypocracy and bigotry.
#9
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:20 pm
by Lonestar
Cynical Cat wrote:As frigid has pointed out, the military has gays in it. Hell, my dad as a somewhat naive small town teenager in the 1950s knew there were a whole bunch of gays in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" didn't change that. What it did change was the number of people being drummed out of the military for being homosexuals. It went up, a lot and it stayed that way.
I'm not sure about that, I've long suspected that Don't Ask Don't Tell made it easier for people to get out of the military without a BCD. So if he didn't want to go on deployment(this is an anecdotal story), he ran to the CMC, told him he was Gay, CMC didn't give a rat's ass ojne way or the other. He went to his Divo, Department head...everyone
strongly suspected he was using the rule to get out of the Navy, and so gave a "I don't give a damn" shrug.
Then he went to the Chaplin. By God he got the paperwork moving then.
I'm against DADT if only because it gives the shitbirds one less way to abuse the system. The numbers being drummed out on DADT have been dropping over the past 10 years or so(go figure, with a big force requirement no one is in a hurry to complete the paperwork) and there are even instances of folks who got discharged over DADT being recalled to active duty. Thus: It should be jettisoned Gays should be allowed to serve openly.
Then NCIS can do something else besides searching through AIM profiles seeing if anyone is saying he's gay and in the service.(and then the attempt discharge will get canned by the courts and the dude will get promoted to chief)
#10
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:57 pm
by Cynical Cat
They didn't need DADT to get out of the military. It was already against the rules, that didn't change. It was supposed to end the military looking for gays, but that went up after DADT and stayed up for at least a few years after.
#11
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:03 pm
by Lonestar
Cynical Cat wrote:They didn't need DADT to get out of the military. It was already against the rules, that didn't change.
The "Imprisonment/Bad Conduct Discharge" associated with getting booted with being gay in the military did change though, I believe DADT marked it down to an administrative discharge.
#12
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:06 pm
by Cynical Cat
Lonestar wrote:Cynical Cat wrote:They didn't need DADT to get out of the military. It was already against the rules, that didn't change.
The "Imprisonment/Bad Conduct Discharge" associated with getting booted with being gay in the military did change though, I believe DADT marked it down to an administrative discharge.
Ahhh. That does matter.
#13
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:16 pm
by Comrade Tortoise
I don't see the policy as being evil or cruel, or at least not motivated by such things. The military in general comprises, and I am not bashing it to say this, a morass of petty indignities that simply come with the territory. As many have said, the military is not the place to be practicing social equality. However if the policy is actually causing more harm than good, which seems obvious at this point, then it may be time to let it go.
Ok. Look at it this way. The closet is a cold, dark, scary place. Now put your self in a gay marines shoes. There is a LOT of pressure. A shit ton. There is the pressure of training, and not being able to so much as send a letter or email to your significant other during this process. Hell when other recruits are talking about the "girl back home" or their various sexual conquests (if this indeed happens during what little down time exists during boot) you cant participate. Same once you are assigned a unit. You are systematically excluded from such discussions, not because they are not relevant to you, but because if you acknowledge you are gay, you get discharged. If they ask about your former civilian life, you have to lie.
If you find someone you like, you have to live a life of secrecy.
Hell, what are marines but a bunch of young boozing pussy hounds (admit it Frigid... it is true... ) who are trained to fight for their country? A gay marine might have a hard time particpating in the extra-curricular activities of their unit (Like going out drinking) because the consequences of that could get awkward and difficult to explain...
That kind of isolation is inherently cruel, it is over and above that kind of isolation that comes with the territory of being gay in such an environment with the secrecy removed. It is not necessary. And it is wrong.
That being said, I don't think that repealing the "don't ask don't tell" is going to do any good. I had a flamboyantly gay friend of my mine walk into a recruitment office and they damn near laughed him out the door. It seems as though it doesn't really matter weather they ask or not. And if they do repeal it and more gay people sign up, there is still going to be problems in the barracks. Only now instead of being told to leave, they get to endure whatever backlash that the other (homophobic) recruits want to dish out.
Except they dont have to deal with it. If DADT is removed and gays can serve openly they can file a complaint with their CO or file charges under the UMCJ if they are harassed or injured. They will be more safe, not less.