Obama to end military gay policy

[Setzer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8301120.stm

US President Barack Obama has said in a key speech to America's largest gay group that he will end the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy.

Mr Obama was speaking to America's largest gay group - the Human Rights Campaign - in Washington.

He has been outlining the progress he hopes to achieve for the gay community in the coming months.

Mr Obama had been criticised for the lack of action on gay marriage and the military issue.

A big gay rights protest march is planned in Washington for Sunday.

Disquiet

Mr Obama has been addressing thousands of gay and lesbian people at a fundraising dinner in the US capital.

“ Don't ask don't tell: they talk about it being a gay issue but it's not - it's just about civil rights and equality ”
Julianne Sohn, former US soldier

The US president has repeatedly pledged to tackle issues important to the gay community.

But he has faced criticism for what many in the gay community see as lack of action on his promises.

"Don't ask don't tell: they talk about it being a gay issue but it's not. It's just about civil rights and equality," Julianne Sohn, a former US soldier, told the BBC.

Another issue causing disquiet among the US gay community is the issue of gay marriage, the BBC's Rajesh Mirchandani in Los Angeles says.

Mr Obama has been criticised for not delivering on his promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how local and federal bodies can recognise gay partnerships and determine benefits.

In many places in America, gay people enjoy a high profile, economic and political clout, our correspondent says.

If he goes through with this all I can say is Fucking Finally! We can set yet another silly fear of the past age behind us.

[Duckie]

He said this on the campaign too and he's said it in office before. He didn't outline any concrete plan.

Hell, he only made the speech because there was a march on washington happening tomorrow by real gays so he had to retreat to the Democrats' pet uncle tom organisation to make it look like he was doing something.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why anyone is surprised by this. Obama is a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. He always was. Why should anyone be surprised that he didn't rush to ram his agenda down everyone's throat? He's taking his time and compromising constantly, which is exactly what any realistic observer would have predicted.

[Master_Baerne]

I don't see why anyone is surprised by this. Obama is a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. He always was. Why should anyone be surprised that he didn't rush to ram his agenda down everyone's throat? He's taking his time and compromising constantly, which is exactly what any realistic observer would have predicted.

Quite so. A liberal fanatic is just that - a fanatic, and unfit for high office. Better to compromise when possible, delay when not, and try to inject some much-needed rationality into American politics.

[Mr Bean]

Quite so. A liberal fanatic is just that - a fanatic, and unfit for high office. Better to compromise when possible, delay when not, and try to inject some much-needed rationality into American politics.

We've talked about this before the problem is the other side are fanatics. So every time you compromise you end up at a conservative position by default. If Obama starts at middle of the road or barely left of middle of the road and the right runs more extreme then we always end up with Obama compromising to a standard Republican position.

More to the point President Obama could at any time ask the military to stop prosecuting Don't Ask Don't Tell cases siting the fact the law was "going under review". He can not sign it away with a pen because it is law but as he has done in Pot cases he has asked law enforcement to consider it a low priority and told the Justice department not to go after California Marijuana dispensaries despite them being against Federal Law because state law allows them.

Instead Don't Ask Don't Tell cases continue to go on and we continue to lose gay and lesbian soldiers/sailors and airmen because of his hesitation on this. He can talk all he wants until he takes one simple fucking step towards this he's still supporting it by default.

[Dominus Atheos]

He can not sign it away with a pen because it is law...

Not true. A while back Congress passed the "Stop-loss" bill that does inadvertently give the President the power to end Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Source

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

Just like Bush forced soldiers who wanted to retire to stay in the military, Obama could stop DADT with a pen-stroke.

[Sidewinder]

Hell, he only made the speech because there was a march on washington happening tomorrow by real gays so he had to retreat to the Democrats' pet uncle tom organisation to make it look like he was doing something.

Military service members tend to be conservatives- study history and see which side an army usually takes in a coup or civil war, e.g., Germany, Japan, and Spain prior to WWII, or Pakistan recently. To get the US military to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell," Obama needs to win over military service members, not civilian activists. Don't blame him if there aren't enough people sympathetic towards gays and their rights (instead of rabidly hostile, as was the case in the 1990s) in the military.

[Duckie]

A recent Zogby poll has 73% of servicemembers okay with DADT repeal, about the same as American citizens.

His excuse that he's having the miltiary study the issue is bullshit. Military spokesmen have confirmed they are not doing anything about DADT, and that they will for the concievable future. Obama isn't telling them to. He's simply passing the buck, like he passed DOMA repeal and DADT to Harry Reid rather than try to lead on it.

The number of valid excuses for not ending DADT are zero. And it's not a time problem. He could do it by congress, if he lifted a finger. He could do it by executive order. He could do it by ordering the military as its commander in chief to devote less priority to DADT suspensions. He could announce DADT is suspending pending congressional review of the issue.

Don't make bullshit excuses based on outdated stereotypes without data to back yourself up or you'll end up looking like you just did.

[Darth Wong]

His excuse that he's having the miltiary study the issue is bullshit. Military spokesmen have confirmed they are not doing anything about DADT, and that they will for the concievable future. Obama isn't telling them to. He's simply passing the buck, like he passed DOMA repeal and DADT to Harry Reid rather than try to lead on it.

No, he's recognizing that he has limited political capital (thanks in large part to the fact that he has to deal with a fanatical extremist ChristoTaliban movement undermining him) and has to spend what little capital he has very carefully. Health care reform is a bigger priority than gay rights, so gay rights goes on the backburner for now.

If he pushes every part of his agenda with equal fervour he would be an idiot; it would only allow his enemies to mobilize even more opposition against him and perhaps stop everything he's trying to do. The fact that he has a majority means nothing; there are a lot of potential turncoats within his own party and if he pushes the boundary, they'll go. Reckless use of executive power would only exacerbate the problem.

But hey, feel free to continue saying that he's just being a pussy. Such brilliantly incisive analysis of political strategy.

[Duckie]

Well, I'm not claiming he should drop health care to end DADT. Health Care is a high priority. But the man promised he would repeal DADT. He keeps saying he's going to repeal DADT. There's a repeal DADT bill with 180 house cosponsors waiting. The Senate Majority Leader and the Secretary of Defense have written him an actual honest to god ink-on-paper letter they wink-wink-nudge-nudge had "accidentally leaked" to the public asking him to instruct them how to proceed with the repeal, and recived no reply.

He needs to own up and say he can't do it now, or maybe even this term, and tell people when he's going to have time to do it. I'd be happier if he'd admit it'll be something he'll deal with the second he's reelected and doesn't have to run anymore, rather than pretend he's actually going to stick his neck out for LGBT rights and then never does, let alone that post 2010 massacre there probably won't be the capability to repeal DADT with even the strongest push.

Continuing to bait people people with "maaaybe tomorrow" in order to try to keep them strung along until 2012 is disingenuous. He knows he's losing votes for his inability to deal all of the things he promised, but he doesn't seem to realise the best way to do it would be honest and admit how long it will take to do things and if certain things (like DOMA repeal) will never get done.

[Darth Wong]

Are you totally incapable of reading basic fucking English? What did I just say? His vagueness on DADT means that his political enemies have less ammunition to use against him. If he gets more specific and makes more concrete promises, then he gives them more ammunition, and he cannot spare that right now. What part of this do you not get?

[Sidewinder]

A recent Zogby poll has 73% of servicemembers okay with DADT repeal, about the same as American citizens.

Are you certain that poll interviewed 100% of US military service members instead of... say, 20%, which means instead of 73% saying, "I'm cool with serving beside a gay guy," you really have 14.6?

Don't make the same mistake as the Chicago Tribune when they printed, "Dewey Defeats Truman."

Don't make bullshit excuses based on outdated stereotypes without data to back yourself up or you'll end up looking like you just did.

I served in the US Army from 2001-2005. Whatever stereotypes I have are not that outdated.

[Duckie]

Again, I'm not saying he's doing something politically stupid. Nobody's ever actually made votes being a leader on gay rights. It's an issue you silently endorse and gain money off of while doing the bare minimum, if you want to make it profitable. But what I'm saying he's very rapidly alienating people who care about LGBT civil rights.

The reason is that gays are getting very uneasy with his unwillingness to even take what are perceived as baby steps towards fulfill his promises. And that's where I'm saying this speech failed. It might have made the HRC happy, but they're percieved as a bunch of useless do-nothing A-list gays in suits who are happy to drink champagne at his events and don't actually suffer from their lack of civil rights. Hell, they earn ridiculous amounts of money because of it.

The rank and file of gay activists and the very grassroots his campaign ran on are very, very pissed off, rightfully or not by his inability to commit to something, and he's hemmhoraging 2012 campaign dollars and votes from them. This speech didn't work. It just made it worse.

He could have made the exact same speech tomorrow in front of the LGBT Civil Rights March, who represent the grassroots rather than the rich lobbyist gays, and it would have at least been effective rather than the neutral or counterproductive one it had. It would have at least given off a different feeling.

[General Zod]

He can not sign it away with a pen because it is law...

Not true. A while back Congress passed the "Stop-loss" bill that does inadvertently give the President the power to end Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Source

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

Just like Bush forced soldiers who wanted to retire to stay in the military, Obama could stop DADT with a pen-stroke.

I'm not sure 'suspend' translates into 'abolish it completely' in this case. From the sounds of it if he suspended DADT, it would still be on the books, just not enforced and another President could easily start it up again.

[Darth Wong]

A recent Zogby poll has 73% of servicemembers okay with DADT repeal, about the same as American citizens.

Are you certain that poll interviewed 100% of US military service members instead of... say, 20%, which means instead of 73% saying, "I'm cool with serving beside a gay guy," you really have 14.6?

Are you a fucking retard? You are assuming that if they interview only 20% of the service people, then the other 80% are 100% against repealing it, which is a completely unreasonable assumption.

Don't make the same mistake as the Chicago Tribune when they printed, "Dewey Defeats Truman."

Speak for yourself.

Don't make bullshit excuses based on outdated stereotypes without data to back yourself up or you'll end up looking like you just did.

I served in the US Army from 2001-2005. Whatever stereotypes I have are not that outdated.

And in that time, you asked more than 20% of all the service members in the entire US military about their opinions on this subject?

[Darth Wong]

Again, I'm not saying he's doing something politically smart. I'm saying he's very rapidly alienating people who care about LGBT civil rights.

And I'm saying those fucking people need to get their goddamned priorities straight. There are people who are dying in your miserable excuse for a country right now because they can't get any fucking health care.

[Duckie]

Again, I'm not saying he's doing something politically smart. I'm saying he's very rapidly alienating people who care about LGBT civil rights.

And I'm saying those fucking people need to get their goddamned priorities straight. There are people who are dying in your miserable excuse for a country right now because they can't get any fucking health care.

I was in the process of editing my post to have a more realistic bent and clarify that statement (I screwed up a double negative, for one). However, I agree- I'm not one of the seething grassroots activists who are stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle where nothing Obama does will ever do. Health Care will save more gays than ENDA ever will.

But I'm still saying he could have done this a lot better without pissing off the real current leaders of the gay rights movement.

(Edit- wow I suck, I've completely lost the ability to negate a subclause. Fixed)

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I'd also point out that Obama has THREE YEARS (or possibly even seven if it absolutely comes down to it) to enact a lot of the stuff he promised to do. Yeah, it kind of sucks that people might have to wait that long, but seriously why does everyone go ballistic that he hasn't immediately fixed everything he promised to fix? Patience, for fuck's sake.

It reminds me of one of those Stargate episodes, in fact, where some Antagonist Government Bureaucrat comes down and starts angrily demanding our Competent Heroes do this and that now now now, damn the consequences! I don't care if the scientist who's been working here for 5 years says it will overload the gate and risk the whole base exploding, I represent the money going into this project so I say how it's used!

[Samuel]

Are you certain that poll interviewed 100% of US military service members instead of... say, 20%, which means instead of 73% saying, "I'm cool with serving beside a gay guy," you really have 14.6?

Don't make the same mistake as the Chicago Tribune when they printed, "Dewey Defeats Truman."

Are you declaring the entire field of statistics is invalid? A hint- you always use samples of a population instead of polling every member of the population. As for Dewey defeats Truman you do realize that was due to a margin of several thousand votes in swing states?

Of course for a poll we'd need to know if it sampled randomly, how many were asked, what the questions were, etc. I don't see any reason to believe that this is is radically different from most other polls which should put the 95% confidence interval rather close to the result.

Are you totally incapable of reading basic fucking English? What did I just say? His vagueness on DADT means that his political enemies have less ammunition to use against him. If he gets more specific and makes more concrete promises, then he gives them more ammunition, and he cannot spare that right now. What part of this do you not get?

Eh, if we start kicking soldiers out for refusing to serve I could see a backlash. Still, I don't know how many conservatives would defend cowardice in the line of duty.

Anyway, the problem is if this will take up political capital or reduce the amount he has in the future. Aren't executive orders free from such considerations?

I'm not sure 'suspend' translates into 'abolish it completely' in this case. From the sounds of it if he suspended DADT, it would still be on the books, just not enforced and another President could easily start it up again.

Yeah, but if the trend for gays keeps up the next president won't reverse it.

The rank and file of gay activists and the very grassroots his campaign ran on are very, very pissed off, rightfully or not by his inability to commit to something, and he's hemmhoraging 2012 campaign dollars and votes from them. This speech didn't work. It just made it worse.

Who else are they going to turn to? The Republicans? Don't you love the American two party system?

[General Zod]

Yeah, but if the trend for gays keeps up the next president won't reverse it.

Maybe not the next guy, but the moment we get another President like Bush I'd expect them to bring it back full in force unless a more permanent solution is put in place.

[Duckie]

Well, the lack of alternatives to Democrats is perhaps why he's insulated from being informed of any problems. Hell, I don't think the Democrats realise they have a growing public relations problem with gay rights, simply because it's such a chaotic and complicated structure spread among thousands of organisations and groups and now steadily being converted into an internet and grassroots campaign by the latest generation.

But you're probably right, in the end. The lack of opposition makes such concerns about satisfaction among gays moot, especially since rich gay organisations like the HRC are going to be donating money and time to him regardless in 2012. The worst everyone else could do is stay home.

But I can't help but shake the feeling that at minimum this speech really did not have the effect he wanted it to on the gay community. Then again, maybe the speech wasn't to the gay community. Maybe it was to the HRC and its sister organisations in particular, to shore up support from them. In which case it did everything it was supposed to- they could barely hear him over their own clapping half the time.

[Samuel]

Yeah, but if the trend for gays keeps up the next president won't reverse it.

Maybe not the next guy, but the moment we get another President like Bush I'd expect them to bring it back full in force unless a more permanent solution is put in place.

I'm hoping that Americans will change in the next decade. If gay rights enters the mainstream and Americans recognize treating other human beings as humans is moral than there won't have to a continued push. It depends solely on how the public mood shifts.

[Darth Wong]

But I'm still saying he could have done this a lot better without pissing off the real current leaders of the gay rights movement.

How? By coming out and telling them that he's putting their priorities on a backburner out of fear that if he pushes gay rights too hard he will face enough backlash to kill the more important items in his agenda? That's the truth, and they certainly won't be happy hearing that. They're upset because they feel that he's not telling them the truth, and he's not telling them the truth because they won't tolerate it.

[Big Phil]

Are you certain that poll interviewed 100% of US military service members instead of... say, 20%, which means instead of 73% saying, "I'm cool with serving beside a gay guy," you really have 14.6?

Don't make the same mistake as the Chicago Tribune when they printed, "Dewey Defeats Truman."

Are you declaring the entire field of statistics is invalid? A hint- you always use samples of a population instead of polling every member of the population. As for Dewey defeats Truman you do realize that was due to a margin of several thousand votes in swing states?

Of course for a poll we'd need to know if it sampled randomly, how many were asked, what the questions were, etc. I don't see any reason to believe that this is is radically different from most other polls which should put the 95% confidence interval rather close to the result.

I don't think Sidewinder understands statistics or market research. For a poll that makes such a claim to not have been a random probability sample would be the height of reckless irresponsibility from a researcher. It is possible that the phrasing of the questions and/or interpretation of the results is flawed, but to criticize Zogby's methodology without understanding it is silly... no, actually, it's pretty damned stupid is what it is.

[Duckie]

Ah, I should have stated. Within a 95% confidence interval, the margin of error was +4%, so it's rather inconcievable that a result of 73% would have been produced from a non-supermajority. Polls for civilians have ranged from 79% to 91%, with the average somewhere in the low 80s.