Obama to end military gay policy

[SirNitram]

Well, yes, I do believe it is wrong to use violence for pushing forward rights. I think it works to help along stereotypes used against the minority. And yes, I'm aware it worked. So did the abuse of the banking system, for those inside it. Doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. ANd any comments re: I've got healthcare so I don't care, well, that's a good excuse for me and other straights to bail from this fight: We've Got Ours. THankfully, we don't.

I'll be honest. Repealing DOMA isn't even on my radar yet. What is? wh

Getting the Matthew Shepard Act passed the SEnator. One more vote and it's on the desk of the POTUS. You know whyy it's first? You can have all the marriage you want, but if it's still not federally a crime, there will simply be even more violence against GBLT(Yes, T. Conyer's put his ass on the line for that.)

DADT. Because it's just another avenue to protect abuse. (All people interested in the abuse angle, please, read This in Stripes.)

Maine. Because when this does come to the Congress, it will become a money-fest from the Religious Right, and every state they bleed for is another pile of money gone from their warchests.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And you say this based on what?

That it is a binary issue that has the broad support of the entire electorate. Essentially only the people who approved of Bush at the end of his term are against repealing it. It would be a political belly wound ("Why do you hate our troops?") for people outside bumfuck bible belt districts to oppose it.

Once more: some kind of UHC also has fairly broad support (and was even written with partial help from his opponents), yet Obama is having a hell of a time implementing it, and it's costing him dearly to do so. Give me ONE fucking reason (and no, your passion does not count as a reason) why we should believe that it's a good idea to try this before he gets some kind of UHC bill passed.

80%ish popularity is much higher than that enjoyed by UHC. It is also a binary issue. You either support it or you dont, what are they going to do? Negotiate with some sort of Gay Quota? So many gay people in the military, but after that they need to be prosecuted? Also: there are not massive corporations that oppose it. Religious groups do, but they spend money against obama anyway.

There is literally nothing to lose, and it would reinvigorate his very disillusioned base, only 6% of which statistically are gay. It would let us know that he can indeed politic his way out of a paper bag and get something done, even if small.

[Darth Wong]

Only 6% of his base is gay, yet you figure it would "reinvigorate" that base to push this issue to the fore?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Only 6% of his base is gay, yet you figure it would "reinvigorate" that base to push this issue to the fore?

Gee, could it be that more than gay people really do give a shit about gay rights? Could it be that this is an issue of some import for US progressives? WOW! What a shock!

Oh, and there probably IS a bias in the stats, as he has just about the ENTIRE gay population in his corner making up his base. I just dont know the exact number off the top of my head so I went with the null hypothesis of a proportionate distribution.

[Broomstick]

Exactly, Martin. And I'm sorry for being sufficiently acerbic as to hurt you.

But, apparently, it is alright to hurt my feelings? Fuck you, bitch.

I have no desire to see anyone die over this issue, least of all you.

Although, apparently, my spouse is optional.

why are a few already gravely ill people slipping away in the meantime suddenly an issue for which we should wait?

Because no one is going to die if SSM isn't universal this year. Because no one is going to die if DADT isn't repealed this year. But people die every goddamned day in this country because of our fucked up healthcare "system".

This was a statement clearly predicated on my accepting Broomstick's initial premise,

Which you distorted through your own bias.

... and then pointing out that it was unethical to demand gay people to sit quietly and suffer when others have actively resisted oppression.

Where the FUCK did I ever ask anyone to "sit quietly and suffer"? NEVER! By all means, agitate for what you believe in, jump up and down and shout, and so forth. Good lord, will you EVER get past the juvenile insistence on everything being a binary black/white us/them with-me-or-against-me Epic Battle?

But in reality I don't accept Broomstick's initial premise; I believe that UHC and repealing DADT can be achieved simultaneously

But I do not believe that can be done simultaneously without risking the loss of both. A difference of opinion. Of course, you are the first to demand the barricades be manned the moment anyone dares to disagree with you to any extent.

...but also about homophobic violence which does result in deaths

OK, let me rephrase this so you can understand it:

It is ALWAYS illegal to kill another person (save in self defense). It doesn't matter if the dead person is straight, gay, asexual, bisexual, whatever. "Homophobic violence" is already a crime if it results in assault or murder. Do we all understand that?

On the other hand it is perfectly legal to deny access to healthcare - even when denial of care may mean their death.

One is a problem of crime. One is a problem of it being legal to condemn people to die. You truly do not see a difference here?

Broomstick is basically asking queers to put their own deaths on a lower rank than the deaths of people due to a lack of health insurance.

Bullshit. I fully support prosecuting anyone committing violence against anyone to the full extent of the law. That includes crimes resulting from homophobia. But passing another law against murder isn't going to end murder. Reforming healthcare may, and likely will, result in fewer preventable deaths.

Got news for you - legalizing SSM and repealing DoMA and DADT isn't going to stop homophobia-inspired crimes. Doing that may, in fact, inspire a violent backlash among panicked conservatards wanting to put those fags and queers in their place in violation of laws already on the books, just as freeing the slaves inspired the KKK to put those uppity blacks in their place. I hasten to add, before Marina explodes with anger (again), that that is entirely and totally wrong. Completely unacceptable. Really, given your interest in history, Marina, I'd frankly be shocked if you hadn't anticipated the possibility of a backlash. After all, history shows that there is an element of society that IS willing to kill people simply for being gay, do you honestly think those people will simply quietly go away?

Now, this makes sense since Broomstick's own personal issues are based around a lack of healthcare, but that just means that she should admit she thoughtlessly put herself first

No, actually, I put my spouse first. Let's keep that straight, shall we? HE's the one in the family who will die if we don't have healthcare, not me.

...and that's why I answered as I did--if you want us to wait for your issues, why shouldn't we try to force you to wait for our issues?

Because if you wait you aren't likely to die of that wait, whereas if you ask my spouse to wait there is, in fact, a high probability of him dying during the wait.

Or maybe she could wake up and smell the fact that Congress regularly debates 13 - 14 issues simultaneously like you just noted, Martin, and replacing one of those with a repeal of DADT would be trivially easy, and just serve to further split Republican resources which would be even better.

No, it would not be "trivial". Gays in the military is a fucking hot-button issue for some of the nutjobs in the US, who, among other things, would accuse Obama and gays of attempting to "sneak" it past Congress while they were distracted by other issues. How fucking retarded are you, really? The Rabid Right would latch onto that like a pitbull onto a rare steak. It would be a fucking shitstorm, it would distract from UHC, at which point it will be FAR easier for the special interests to even further gut and castrate that initiative.

[Broomstick]

Are you fucking insane? Or are you just being a goddamned idiot who needs the most elementary principles of ethics explained in exhaustive detail?

The later, most likely. I was given no ethical education beyond might makes right, and death is the solution to virtually every problem. That still influences how I see the world, and has repeatedly injured me far more than it will in this thread.

Then get the fuck over it. Seriously. Because it's just going to get in your way again. While you're reinventing yourself - admittedly a project requiring several years - review your ethics as well. Come up with something better than what was served up to you in childhood and which you already admit is shit and you already admit has done you injury.

Bullshit. The opposition against Obama right now is against the man more than it is against his ideas. Most of his most vehement critics don't even know that much about his ideas. It is critically important for him to suppress the widely circulated right-wing notion that he is some kind of radical leftist. This is fucking US politics, not a theoretical debate among rational participants.

And there's nothing radical about DADT, which has the support of more republicans than any UHC measure does...

Once again, I find it very sad that a Canadian (among other non-US netizens here) has a better grasp of US politics and than a native-born American does....

[Broomstick]

You can say that the democrats have no resources left to spend on gay rights, and you may be right - but then, the gay community has every right to complain about the dems, because then they are not only unwilling but unable to further the cause.

Keep in mind that support for gay rights is not universal within the Democratic Party. There are many sub-groups who are as opposed to gay rights as anyone in the Republican Party.

But i can completely understand the feeling that it is swept under the rug, just because "oh, well, we have better things to do" - because, apparently, thats what happens it the US for decades now.

If you discount all the progress from the bottom-up - MANY locations in the US have passed anti-discrimination laws in employment and housing specifically banning discrimination based on sexual orientation (the city of Chicago, for example, along with various cities in California and on the East Coast). Many private companies offer health and insurance benefits to same-sex partners (my former employer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, being one of them). Anti-sodomy laws have been thrown out. States are beginning to offer same sex marriage. Holy fuck, let's just forget about all that?

Grass-roots reform on LGBT issues has worked over the years. It's not perfect, it would be MUCH better if things were consistent nationwide, but progress HAS been made. On the other hand, we've had decades of attempted reform below the Federal level on healthcare and the situation is uniformly worse. Yes, if we had Federal buy-in on gay rights it would help, but even if we don't, progress has occurred and will continue. If we don't get the weight of the Feds behind healthcare reform we ain't gonna have shit.

And in Marinas situation, i would get quite agitated, too.

It doesn't help that, for decades, homosexuals (as a group - I am NOT referring to any individual on this forum) have shown a willingness to throw transsexuals under the bus for their own gain, even if that gain is minimal. No wonder the "T" in LGBT is so chronically pissed off. They have every right to be. But throwing someone else under the bus will not endear anyone to their cause.

It pisses me off that after decades of supporting homosexual causes, even back when it was neither popular nor safe to do so, that Marina comes and pisses on me. I am entirely in favor of equal rights for homosexuals, I am quite happy to speak out for it, but don't fucking make me sacrifice the lives of people, including family, for something that isn't killing people.

[Darth Wong]

Only 6% of his base is gay, yet you figure it would "reinvigorate" that base to push this issue to the fore?

Gee, could it be that more than gay people really do give a shit about gay rights? Could it be that this is an issue of some import for US progressives? WOW! What a shock!

Gee, could it be that you're a fucking smarmy idiot who can't tell the difference between "agrees with the idea" and "will be reinvigorated if Obama makes a push for it right now"?

Oh, and there probably IS a bias in the stats, as he has just about the ENTIRE gay population in his corner making up his base. I just dont know the exact number off the top of my head so I went with the null hypothesis of a proportionate distribution.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this would "reinvigorate" his base. It's a projection that you've pulled straight out of your ass.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Gee, could it be that you're a fucking smarmy idiot who can't tell the difference between "agrees with the idea" and "will be reinvigorated if Obama makes a push for it right now"?

So it is your contention that "he got something done" wont bump his approval rating among progressives? Perhaps reinvigorate was a poor choice of words. Encourage might be a bit better. Either way are you telling me that progressives will not be demonstrably more happy if DADT is removed from the books, and that this will not be of significant benefit?

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this would "reinvigorate" his base. It's a projection that you've pulled straight out of your ass.

So is the contention that there will be a significant (why which I mean harmful to UHC) backlash from gently putting something (repealing DADT, I am not dealing with the other stuff like gay marriage right now) through congress that has the support (in binary fashion) of 80% of the american people.

It seems to me that you are treating these issues as if obama must spend "Political capital" as if it were a physically limiting resource. If it is so limited that the spending of a tiny fraction of the amount he possesses will damage his efforts at passing a facsimile of actual UHC, then he wont have any left to deal with DADT anyway. Once more with the empty promises.

I reject this false dilemma you have set up. Unless of course you can provide evidence that those who bitch about UHC are different from the ones who bitch about gays in the military. That is what your position that repealing DADT will somehow damage his efforts at UHC requires. If you have such evidence, provide it and i will concede immediately.

Again: Not agreeing with Marina. If there is a zero sum game between gay rights(specifically DADT) and healthcare reform, healthcare reform is more important. However you have provided no evidence that this is the case. Thus I reject your position.

[Frank Hipper]

Why do you deserve to live when we don't deserve to marry?

[Darth Wong]

Gee, could it be that you're a fucking smarmy idiot who can't tell the difference between "agrees with the idea" and "will be reinvigorated if Obama makes a push for it right now"?

So it is your contention that "he got something done" wont bump his approval rating among progressives? Perhaps reinvigorate was a poor choice of words. Encourage might be a bit better. Either way are you telling me that progressives will not be demonstrably more happy if DADT is removed from the books, and that this will not be of significant benefit?

Progressives are not the issue, moron. The issue is all of those goddamned idiot middle-of-the-road morons who think that both sides are making good points on this ridiculous UHC debate. You think someone who is stupid enough to think that Joe Wilson has a point is going to be reasonable about this or anything else? He is going to think that the right-wingers are half-right about how repealing DADT proves Obama is a crazy left-wing ideologue, regardless of whether they might have supported DADT if a right-wing politician repealed it.

How the fuck can you be watching American politics and not realize how everything he does is always interpreted in the worst possible light by right-wingers, or that the so-called "moderates" always buy about half of the bullshit that the right-wingers fling at him?

If Obama is going to do this thing, he is not just going to sign an executive order to make it happen, because that would play into the conservatives' hands. He has to make sure he has all kinds of people supporting him, including the military brass. Otherwise the right-wing will be howling about it, and the goddamned Mindless Middle will think (as usual) that they have a point.

[Edi]

What some people here need to get into their heads is that the same sex marriage issues are going to take more time. Specifically, you're in all likelihood going to have to wait for a significant portion of the post-WW2 generation (the ones born in the 1940s and 1950s) to die off, since they are currently very much the driving force behind a lot of the social conservative inertia.

Many of them are simply so locked into inflexibility on these issues that it doesn't matter what the situation, they will oppose it. As far as anecdotes go, I've heard enough casually anti-gay comments from my parents (born in the mid-1940s) to know that they don't even consciously register they're being so. When they have the implications of what they said pointed out to them, it's always an instant about-face because they realize it, but that does not remove the underlying prejudice. And they are very progressive even here, which by US standards is a left-liberal utopia. When you add the rabid religiosity of US society, the standard of education and the Mindless Middle population with all the other issues Mike and Kendall have pointed out, what the fuck do you expect? Overnight change?

Not. Going. To. Happen!

Don't stop working for that change, but like it was said, pick your battles and take the victories you can get, even if they are incremental.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd like to point out an analogy to the abortion issue. When Roe v. Wade passed, it crushed 48* state laws banning abortion. Now, from the left side of the US political center (which overwhelmingly dominates on this forum), you can say that's a good thing. That's progress, that's reform, that's loosening of the nation's laws on sexual mores, which greatly needed to loosen up.

But there was a problem with that. It was a big loosening of those laws. One that did not come with a corresponding loosening of popular opinion. Roe v. Wade changed the laws, but it didn't actually change anyone's mind. And those abortion bans would not still have been on the books if there weren't still a lot of people who supported them, and a lot of people conflicted enough on the issue to be indifferent to them.

From left of the US political center, the natural response is to say "Fuck 'em; now we've got the reform that was so desperately needed." But the moment the reform passes isn't the end of the story. All those people who supported the status quo were still there, and they were pissed, because they had just been overruled. No one asked them if it was OK to kill babies**; they just woke up one morning and read that suddenly killing babies was legal in their state.

Changes in the law are stairstep functions: what was banned yesterday is legal today. Changes in public opinion are continuous, and take much longer to happen- not least because half the time you're waiting for the old guard to die, not for them to change their minds. And because the laws against abortion changed so far ahead of the gradual shift in public opinion, they left a huge number of people still opposed to abortion feeling screwed over in the wake of the change of laws.

That feeling became a key wedge for the reactionary*** movement in the US. People who would happily have played along with the left on most issues in the '70s and '80s suddenly had "and killing babies is legal everywhere!" tacked onto the end of the party platform. That shook away support, and created a hard nucleus of very angry people who saw legal abortion as a sign that the left had become hopelessly decadent, a monstrosity that had to be fought by all means, fair or foul. And while a lot of those people were already aging out of the demographics, they passed that same dedication to their children and grandchildren... and we're still dealing with the fallout today. Abortion clinics have to deal with a massive amount of crap, so much that they've been de facto driven out of large parts of the country that are de jure forced to let them stay open.

I think that's a cautionary tale that we ought to remember when we talk about drastic changes to the nation's official sexual mores that don't yet correspond to changes in the population's mores.

Personally, I think that ending DADT doesn't qualify as that big and dangerous a change... but it's big enough to border on it, just as ending segregation in the military was a big step in 1947.
_______

*I think. Plus or minus one or two.
**To use the definition of abortion in a lot of their heads.
*** And I use the term advisedly; I'm not just talking about people who want to stop change but who rebel against it and try to roll it back.

[Junghalli]

What some people here need to get into their heads is that the same sex marriage issues are going to take more time. Specifically, you're in all likelihood going to have to wait for a significant portion of the post-WW2 generation (the ones born in the 1940s and 1950s) to die off, since they are currently very much the driving force behind a lot of the social conservative inertia.

Changes in the law are stairstep functions: what was banned yesterday is legal today. Changes in public opinion are continuous, and take much longer to happen- not least because half the time you're waiting for the old guard to die, not for them to change their minds.

You know, this is rather off-topic and might sound a incredibly dickish, but things like this occassionally make me wonder about the drawbacks of a cure for aging (leaving aside the obvious one that it would likely make the overpopulation problem much worse).

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing if such a thing were developed (I reserve considerable ire for the "immortality immorality" crowd), but it is a reminder that even very positive technological developments will have side effects that you may not like. Such as slowing down moral progress because the old generation never leaves and takes their Dark Age baggage with them. Or at least one could put it that way. Although looking at it another way, "it's arguably a good thing that these bigoted fucktards will all be dead of a degenerative disease in a few decades" is a pretty horrible assholish sentiment. I can't blame anyone reading this for thinking I'm a titanic cock for thinking this way, because while it may have some truth being glad people will die because it advances your political cause is pretty awful, and if it came down to it no, I'm not going to hope for people to die because they hold bigoted beliefs.

[Simon_Jester]

Changes in the law are stairstep functions: what was banned yesterday is legal today. Changes in public opinion are continuous, and take much longer to happen- not least because half the time you're waiting for the old guard to die, not for them to change their minds.

You know, this is rather off-topic and might sound a incredibly dickish, but things like this occassionally make me wonder about the drawbacks of a cure for aging (leaving aside the obvious one that it would likely make the overpopulation problem much worse).

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing if such a thing were developed (I reserve considerable ire for the "immortality immorality" crowd), but it is a reminder that even very positive technological developments will have side effects that you may not like. Such as slowing down moral progress because the old generation never leaves and takes their Dark Age baggage with them. Or at least one could put it that way. Although looking at it another way, "it's arguably a good thing that these bigoted fucktards will all be dead of a degenerative disease in a few decades" is a pretty horrible assholish sentiment. I can't blame anyone reading this for thinking I'm a titanic cock for thinking this way, because while it may have some truth being glad people will die because it advances your political cause is pretty awful, and if it came down to it no, I'm not going to hope for people to die because they hold bigoted beliefs.

Realistically, I think anything that really cures aging (as opposed to just leaving the old to fall prey to Tithonus Syndrome as they get older and older in bodies that just Will Not Let Them Die) would have to address whatever neural problem seems to cause people to lose mental flexibility in their old age. After all, that's one of the big factors that forces most people to retire when they get old; even if they work at a desk job where the physical demands boil down to being able to stay awake for six to eight hours a day, their mind just isn't keeping up with the job anymore.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Progressives are not the issue, moron. The issue is all of those goddamned idiot middle-of-the-road morons who think that both sides are making good points on this ridiculous UHC debate. You think someone who is stupid enough to think that Joe Wilson has a point is going to be reasonable about this or anything else? He is going to think that the right-wingers are half-right about how repealing DADT proves Obama is a crazy left-wing ideologue, regardless of whether they might have supported DADT if a right-wing politician repealed it.

How the fuck can you be watching American politics and not realize how everything he does is always interpreted in the worst possible light by right-wingers, or that the so-called "moderates" always buy about half of the bullshit that the right-wingers fling at him?

If Obama is going to do this thing, he is not just going to sign an executive order to make it happen, because that would play into the conservatives' hands. He has to make sure he has all kinds of people supporting him, including the military brass. Otherwise the right-wing will be howling about it, and the goddamned Mindless Middle will think (as usual) that they have a point.

How much longer are we expecting this Health Care reform debate to go on? I mean it's not like we've just started talking about this. It's been months now and I can't see this going on indefinitely. Not every gay activist is expecting Obama to debate Health Care and DADT simultaneously. At least, you would think the politically smart thing to do is to not only wait until the Health Care debate is over but also provide better assurances to an already disillusioned base. If Obama had given some kind of hint as when he was going to tackle this problem - say in 2010 - I am absolutely sure that his speech would have had a much better reception.

Don't forget that not all parts of his base contribute equally. There is the voting base, which make up the group of liberal to center Americans who will vote with Obama very reliably. And then there is the activist base, which comprises of groups and people who actually do tangible things in their communities to help further Obama's agenda. They phone bank, canvass, reach out to other communities, and encourage other people to do the same. They help move the Democratic constituency to put pressure on their congressmen to get things done. Obama would have never been elected if it weren't for these people who took the opportunity presented last year and did the work necessary to help put Obama where he is right now. I'm not saying that the activist base is the sole reason for Obama's presidency but it was no small factor either. These people just aren't given the same media attention as the "Tea Party" or the Health Care-nonsense-screaming protesters. They're also not as fucking insane as the right-wing activists.

LGBT activists did a lot to promote Obama last year. And by LGBT activists, I mean people who actively work for the betterment of the LGBT community. These include a lot of straight allies, which comprises a surprising percentage of LGBT activists. These also include people who not only work for gay rights but also do work for other progressive issues such as... health care reform! Granted, many were split during the primaries but, once the general election got underway, these people were important in the overall grassroots movement. I'm not saying that it's politically wise for Obama to take on UHC and DADT with full force at the same time. In fact, I think it's a smart move to finish the Health Care debate first. But it would be foolhardy to think that the people who are most passionate about gay rights are politically expendable. Obama should have given us better assurances of his promises. It didn't need to require him to tackle DADT right now. Most of us are just disappointed that nothing new was said when even giving us some sort of timeline would have done wonders for his image amongst his activist base.

[Thanas]

But by giving a timeline, Obama would have just gave the republicans more time to prepare.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

But by giving a timeline, Obama would have just gave the republicans more time to prepare.

I think the Republicans are competent enough at attacking Obama that they should already be prepared for a DADT fight by now. On the flip side, you also reinvigorate activists on your side to do things in the mean time. Giving reason for your "soldiers" to actively go out and put pressure on Congress gives you political capital.

[Thanas]

But Obama will have to fight two fights against reluctant blue dogs at the same time. This will result in a loss of political capital no gay rights campaigners can ever make up and will most likely sink both initiatives. Give them one bitter pill to swallow at a time.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

But Obama will have to fight two fights against reluctant blue dogs at the same time. This will result in a loss of political capital no gay rights campaigners can ever make up and will most likely sink both initiatives. Give them one bitter pill to swallow at a time.

Obama will have to fight two fights by just giving more assurances to the LGBT community? He signed executive orders giving a few protections to federally employed LGBT couples awhile back and didn't get very much flak for that. And all of a sudden just giving a timeline in a speech will embroil him into another massive fight? I don't buy that.

[Junghalli]

Realistically, I think anything that really cures aging (as opposed to just leaving the old to fall prey to Tithonus Syndrome as they get older and older in bodies that just Will Not Let Them Die) would have to address whatever neural problem seems to cause people to lose mental flexibility in their old age. After all, that's one of the big factors that forces most people to retire when they get old; even if they work at a desk job where the physical demands boil down to being able to stay awake for six to eight hours a day, their mind just isn't keeping up with the job anymore.

I don't think older generations tend to be more conservative because of neurological aging symptoms, or at least I don't think that's the primary reason. I think it's a simple matter of our values tending to reflect those of the culture we grew up in. Older generations tend to be more conservative because the culture has been getting more liberal over time, hence older people grew up in a more conservative culture than younger people and their values will differ in ways that reflect that. Social liberalization can be thought of as a positive feedback cycle, where reformers make the culture more liberal and as a result skew the entire standard deviation curve of liberal to conservative to the liberal side as the new generation grows up in that more liberal culture and the old generation that grew up in the more conservative culture dies out, and as a result the next generation of reformers will push things even further to the liberal side, repeating the cycle. Remove the element that older generations eventually leave the culture (die) and you eliminate half the feedback cycle (or at least weaken it - if the population's growing then you may still get a similar effect because older generations will be an ever-diminishing slice of the demographic pie and eventually be pushed into being a small and hence politically weak minority - although the tendency of power to stay in the hands of people who already have it will probably weaken this effect at least a little).

Eh, sorry if this is a thread hijack.

[Thanas]

But Obama will have to fight two fights against reluctant blue dogs at the same time. This will result in a loss of political capital no gay rights campaigners can ever make up and will most likely sink both initiatives. Give them one bitter pill to swallow at a time.

Obama will have to fight two fights by just giving more assurances to the LGBT community? He signed executive orders giving a few protections to federally employed LGBT couples awhile back and didn't get very much flak for that. And all of a sudden just giving a timeline in a speech will embroil him into another massive fight? I don't buy that.

If it happens to be a major family values issue? Yeah, you bet he will.

[lance]

What if he executived ordered away DADT while having GLBTI surrogates attack him for not doing enough/ just letting gays join to get shot at or what ever. So he helps with an issue with a smoke screen to make it appear like he's not doing enough or that its a half hearted token that doesn't mean anything.

It sounded better in my head.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

But Obama will have to fight two fights against reluctant blue dogs at the same time. This will result in a loss of political capital no gay rights campaigners can ever make up and will most likely sink both initiatives. Give them one bitter pill to swallow at a time.

Obama will have to fight two fights by just giving more assurances to the LGBT community? He signed executive orders giving a few protections to federally employed LGBT couples awhile back and didn't get very much flak for that. And all of a sudden just giving a timeline in a speech will embroil him into another massive fight? I don't buy that.

If it happens to be a major family values issue? Yeah, you bet he will.

No, this isn't a major family values issue. This is a major national defense issue for which there is already ~70+% support amongst the populace on our side. Back in June, Obama signing a few protections for federally employed LGBT couples is a much greater family values issue than this is. And that barely raised a vocal stink amongst conservatives. Simply giving better assurances that Obama is going to repeal DADT in a timely manner will not embroil the president into another big fight.

[SirNitram]

What if he executived ordered away DADT while having GLBTI surrogates attack him for not doing enough/ just letting gays join to get shot at or what ever. So he helps with an issue with a smoke screen to make it appear like he's not doing enough or that its a half hearted token that doesn't mean anything.

It sounded better in my head.

Let's see. First off, meaningless. The next President will just sign it away.

Second, how's this sound in your head:
"Obama unilaterally overrides top Pentagon generals."
"Impeachment Papers read before House for Obama's radical refusal to enforce bipartisan law."
"Gay Rights or Radical Agenda?"

And this is before we deal with the 24 hour news cycle, opinion peices, and so forth.

Yes, the GOP/Blue Dogs will do all this. If you doubt it for a second, if it sounds too stupid to be true, remember: DEATH PANELS.