Mil Recruiters told to accept gays.

[SVPD]

It probably varies greatly depending on each unit. And of course your chain of command. I've heard of units where everybody "knows" somebody is gay and doesn't care, thus nobody officially knows the person is gay. That sort of thing.

I’ve heard of a bunch of cases in which soldiers openly said they were gay, and the unit commander simply closed his ears, didn't have them discharged, and ordered them off to Iraqistan anyway. That kind of problem is exactly why DADT has become such a huge issue in the last two years. If the commanders won’t enforce it, the policy has to die because otherwise it is explicitly undermining the chain of command.

Sort of. The policy always required credible information (i.e. rumors, attending a gay pride parade, or going to a gay bar could not be acted on, and allowed the commander to determine what was credible. It also allowed an exception for when the commander believed the soldier was claiming to be gay to get out of an obligation.

Therefore if a commander wanted to keep an openly gay soldier they could just say the information they were aware of and/or the soldier was trying to get out of <insert military duty here>.

It didn't undermine the chain of command that way, but it did mean that there were a lot of loopholes to keep a good soldier.

[Cecelia5578]

Not unexpected. This administration continues to politically shoot itself in the foot.

I'm surprised at the insistence of the Administration and its most strident defenders for a legislative solution. Its like the right's attack on judicial review since the Warren Court has been internalized by people who shriek "Permanent Republican Majority" the moment you criticize Obama.

[Cecelia5578]

It probably varies greatly depending on each unit. And of course your chain of command. I've heard of units where everybody "knows" somebody is gay and doesn't care, thus nobody officially knows the person is gay. That sort of thing.

I’ve heard of a bunch of cases in which soldiers openly said they were gay, and the unit commander simply closed his ears, didn't have them discharged, and ordered them off to Iraqistan anyway. That kind of problem is exactly why DADT has become such a huge issue in the last two years. If the commanders won’t enforce it, the policy has to die because otherwise it is explicitly undermining the chain of command.

Sort of. The policy always required credible information (i.e. rumors, attending a gay pride parade, or going to a gay bar could not be acted on, and allowed the commander to determine what was credible. It also allowed an exception for when the commander believed the soldier was claiming to be gay to get out of an obligation.

Therefore if a commander wanted to keep an openly gay soldier they could just say the information they were aware of and/or the soldier was trying to get out of <insert military duty here>.

It didn't undermine the chain of command that way, but it did mean that there were a lot of loopholes to keep a good soldier.

I always thought that simply stating you're gay fell under the statements part of statements, acts or marriages. It can't get much more credible than someone themselves saying they are gay. I think most of that ear closing over the past decade had to do with soldiers (who may not actually have been gay) wanting to get out of deployments.

I've never been comfortable with the kind of libertarianism described by people where certain units and commands will tolerate openly gay servicemembers. Its a nice sorta tolerant oasis, but I think the law really needs to be followed, rather than making a mockery of the chain of command as Skimmer said.

[Chaotic Neutral]

I've never been comfortable with the kind of libertarianism described by people where certain units and commands will tolerate openly gay servicemembers. Its a nice sorta tolerant oasis, but I think the law really needs to be followed, rather than making a mockery of the chain of command as Skimmer said.

And what if they said that Jews and Muslims weren't allowed in the military? Does something change then?

[SVPD]

I always thought that simply stating you're gay fell under the statements part of statements, acts or marriages. It can't get much more credible than someone themselves saying they are gay. I think most of that ear closing over the past decade had to do with soldiers (who may not actually have been gay) wanting to get out of deployments.

Exactly. Saying your gay did fall under statments, acts or marriages, but there was also an exception if the statement was intended to relieve the soldier of military obligation; especially when there was no credible evidence other than the statement.

Since a soldier who actually is gay would still get out of deployment, it wansn't unknown for commanders to simply regard any other evidence as not credible in order to keep a good soldier when going to combat.

[Lord of the Abyss]

It probably varies greatly depending on each unit. And of course your chain of command. I've heard of units where everybody "knows" somebody is gay and doesn't care, thus nobody officially knows the person is gay. That sort of thing.

I’ve heard of a bunch of cases in which soldiers openly said they were gay, and the unit commander simply closed his ears, didn't have them discharged, and ordered them off to Iraqistan anyway. That kind of problem is exactly why DADT has become such a huge issue in the last two years. If the commanders won’t enforce it, the policy has to die because otherwise it is explicitly undermining the chain of command.

That seems more like part of the "good enough to die, not good enough to serve" syndrome. They'll look the other way as long as they need bodies to throw at those occupations, but as soon as the military doesn't need those extra bodies out the door they'll go with no benefits and no thanks.

[open_sketchbook]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11589638

Court allows Pentagon to re-instate ban on gay soldiers

An appeals court has ruled the US military can temporarily reinstate a ban on openly gay people serving, in a move adding to disarray on the issue.

The decision came eight days after a judge struck down the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays serving openly.

The military began accepting gay recruits this week, but it sought to keep the ban in place while it appealed against its overturning.

On Wednesday a San Francisco court said the ban could continue temporarily.

The legal moves come as the Pentagon studies how gay people can be properly integrated into the US military, an effort that would entail dramatic changes in policies on insurance, housing and even protocol at military social events.

President Barack Obama and some top military leaders have called for ending the ban, but Mr Obama believes it should be done through legislation, rather than court action. Meanwhile, his administration has argued overturning the ban immediately could cause problems for the military.

Britain, Israel and dozens of other countries allow gay personnel to serve openly. Under the policy established in 1993 under former President Bill Clinton, the US military is forbidden to inquire about service members' sexual orientation, but can expel people discovered to be homosexual.

The Justice Department said in its latest appeals court filing that leaving California Federal Judge Virginia Phillips's overturn of the ban in place could create uncertainty for the "status of service members who may reveal their sexual orientation in reliance on the district court's decision and injunction".

The court papers added that developing "training and guidance" in relation to a change in the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would take time and effort.

Advocates for gay troops have urged them not to reveal their orientation yet, citing the ongoing uncertainty.
'Violating free speech'

Judge Phillips declared on 12 October that the policy violated gay military members' rights to free speech and to equal protection under the law.

Democrats in the US Senate attempted to overturn the policy in September, but failed to get the necessary votes amid universal opposition from the minority Republicans. The House of Representatives approved measures to change the policy in May.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced her support for gay teenagers through a video message posted on Tuesday on the website YouTube, saying "hang in there and ask for help".

On Wednesday, former US Army Lt Dan Choi, who was discharged after declaring on television that he was gay and could no longer conceal his identity, filed papers to re-enlist in the army.

[SVPD]

It probably varies greatly depending on each unit. And of course your chain of command. I've heard of units where everybody "knows" somebody is gay and doesn't care, thus nobody officially knows the person is gay. That sort of thing.

I’ve heard of a bunch of cases in which soldiers openly said they were gay, and the unit commander simply closed his ears, didn't have them discharged, and ordered them off to Iraqistan anyway. That kind of problem is exactly why DADT has become such a huge issue in the last two years. If the commanders won’t enforce it, the policy has to die because otherwise it is explicitly undermining the chain of command.

That seems more like part of the "good enough to die, not good enough to serve" syndrome. They'll look the other way as long as they need bodies to throw at those occupations, but as soon as the military doesn't need those extra bodies out the door they'll go with no benefits and no thanks.

You're making an assumption about the commanders, namely that they're perfectly willing to do that to someone they served with in combat. In reality, relatively few commanders are both A) that cynical and B) that concerned about homosexuals in the first place. In point of fact we had a lesbian medic in the battalion I deployed with, her company commander knew it, and when we got home did nothing of the sort. To my knowledge, she's still in the Army Reserves and that was over 2 years ago.

There's also the practical problem that if you do this, you're opening yourself up to all kinds of trouble. If you had credible information the soldier was gay, why didn't you act on it? If you "suddenly discover" a soldier is gay when you get home, that is going to look mighty suspicious.

You can't really have it both ways; you can either look the other way or you can not look the other way. You can't do both and expect to get away with it.

[Lord of the Abyss]

You're making an assumption about the commanders, namely that they're perfectly willing to do that to someone they served with in combat. In reality, relatively few commanders are both A) that cynical and B) that concerned about homosexuals in the first place. In point of fact we had a lesbian medic in the battalion I deployed with, her company commander knew it, and when we got home did nothing.

There's also the practical problem that if you do this, you're opening yourself up to all kinds of trouble. If you had credible information the soldier was gay, why didn't you act on it? If you "suddenly discover" a soldier is gay when you get home, that is going to look mighty suspicious.

You are assuming that they aren't under pressure from their own higher ups to do just that; to look the other way for a time until there is less of a manpower shortfall.

And IIRC that is the pattern actually seen; when there's a war on the effort to kick out the gays slacks off until it's over, and then out they go. Unfortunately my google skills fail at getting me a cite either way.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Absolutely. Their counterparts sixty years ago thought black people were mutant ape-men out to molest their daughters and lead them astray from racial purity, too.

And it took 20 fucking years. Why the fuck should we get full recognition as human beings on the schedule of the most bigoted? Why in the living fuck should this be up to the legislature, or *shivers* popular vote? Ever wonder why I absolutely fucking despise democracy? Being on the receiving end of the "Will of the People" is why.

In a society where the civilian culture is steadily trending in favor of tolerance- and it is; much of the portrayal of gays in society today would have been unthinkable if you went back two decades and outright illegal if you went back four.

Yeah. And who does the legislature pander to now? The far fucking wackjob right. We have trouble getting straight people who think we are human beings to the polls due to sheer god damn apathy, they(fundies, and old people... same thing really) vote like it is a religious obligation.... oh wait. IT IS. There are precisely two groups of people who by and large (there are exceptions of course) are willing to sacrifice other principles and vote to punish a congressman who votes against them. Us (the gays, and a few very very very special straight people who are by no means mainstream), and the fucking fundie twats. Other than that though, liberals are a grab bag, and each of them holds other issues to be more important. So a straight democrat facing the choice between a gay hating but pro-choice democrat, and a republican who is anti-choice, will vote to fuck us (by which I mean, he will vote in such a way as to not penalize democrats who hold anti-gay positions) and that is if you can get him to the polls, which is dicey. The fundies on the other hand primary challenge their politicos for the smallest misstep from the Theocracy Party line.

Forcing people from the young-adult demographic to serve alongside members of the minority group in the military makes a shift away from discrimination against the minority more likely, not less.

Save that only a small percentage of young people go into the military. I would argue that the desegregation of the military really did very little, if anything. Instead it was the choice given to society (by which I mean congress) by the civil rights movement. "You can either deal with us, or the black panthers"

That doesn't make keeping a discriminatory policy in place to 'avoid hypocrisy' a good move. It's fine for preserving an unsullied 100-0 score of victories for cynicism, but that doesn't make it smart tactics.

The point is, this whole thing, all of it, is a constitutional question. At bare min, to support DADT being repealed I would require that DOMA go the way of Stellers Sea Cow. If Obama is serious about his "fierce advocate" bullshit, he should not be appealing this current ruling, nor should he be appealing Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services or Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, which he currently fucking IS.

He has every right to either not appeal, or to appeal but stipulate that he views the law as unconstitutional and appealed only as a means by which groups who do not have standing to appeal directly may come before the appellate court and argue by proxy.

Doing anything other than these options indicates that he does not give a shit about us, save as a political tool (and cannon fodder in the middle east). He wants our votes, but wont give us anything for them. If that is the case, fuck him, and God Damn America.

A lot of the driving force behind the conservative backlash of the past few years (or, if you prefer, the intensification of a backlash that's been going on for the past decade and a half) is made up of, bluntly, old people. Look at the age demographics of the Tea Party and you'll see it; this was pointed out to me recently.

This is a constitutional question. Why the fuck should we need to wait for the old people to keel over and die?

What's critical is convincing the next cohorts not to follow in their grandparents' footsteps, or at least not to unflinchingly march that road at all costs and no matter who gets hurt. It worked for convincing the troglodytes that black people weren't evil mutant ape-men; it will work for convincing them that gay people aren't evil satanic child molesters.

Doing that took a generation of full integration in the school systems, and mandatory participation by black people. For that condition to hold, and for the fundies to finally stop thinking we are sub-human, we must have FULL legal civil rights. The south did not vote for the Civil Rights Act. They just got outvoted by congressmen from north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Civil rights have always come at the angry protestations of bigots. Never from the ballot box up. They have always come from the courts, first, civil war second, and act of congress third.

[Drone]

You're making an assumption about the commanders, namely that they're perfectly willing to do that to someone they served with in combat. In reality, relatively few commanders are both A) that cynical and B) that concerned about homosexuals in the first place. In point of fact we had a lesbian medic in the battalion I deployed with, her company commander knew it, and when we got home did nothing.

There's also the practical problem that if you do this, you're opening yourself up to all kinds of trouble. If you had credible information the soldier was gay, why didn't you act on it? If you "suddenly discover" a soldier is gay when you get home, that is going to look mighty suspicious.

You are assuming that they aren't under pressure from their own higher ups to do just that; to look the other way for a time until there is less of a manpower shortfall.

And IIRC that is the pattern actually seen; when there's a war on the effort to kick out the gays slacks off until it's over, and then out they go. Unfortunately my google skills fail at getting me a cite either way.

There isn't a manpower shortfall, all branches are looking to kick people out at the moment, for ANY reason.

[Rogue 9]

Civil rights have always come at the angry protestations of bigots. Never from the ballot box up. They have always come from the courts, first, civil war second, and act of congress third.

What courts ruled in favor of civil rights for blacks before the American Civil War? I can't think of any. You have your order a little mixed up, and frankly I don't see a civil war (or not one that supporters of LGBT rights can win, if it comes to that) coming anytime soon.

There are two ways it can go; social change (which is happening) can bring about the necessary changes in the electorate and therefore the elected and their laws at the rate of generational change, or a pro-homosexual insurrection of some sort can piss everybody off. Since you seem to be hinting at contemplating that course, let me remind you that slave rebellions in the antebellum South never, not even once produced favorable changes for the slaves; those that did not escape in the immediate aftermath would be killed if they participated and the remainder placed under ever heavier guard and restrictions and/or sold further south. Are things so bad now that this would happen to the entire class if there were an insurrection of some sort? No, I don't think they are. But it certainly wouldn't help anything, and would accomplish nothing other than death, destruction, and an electorate hardened against conceding anything.

Frankly, I do not believe that the current situation of homosexuals in the United States is best compared to the institution of slavery and the social progress of its victims and their descendants to begin with; you would do better to look to the assimilation of various immigrant groups in the late 19th century for your model. (You know, the English didn't like the Germans, who refused to hire the Irish, who discriminated against the Italians, and so on down the line.) The reason for this is that, while homosexuals do in some regard hold a sort of second-class citizenship (as the aforementioned immigrants did during the periods of their various migrations), they (you) are not chattel nor even close.

I would discuss this further, but I'm very close to being late for an important appointment. Should you wish an elaboration, I'll be back later.

[Anguirus]

an effort that would entail dramatic changes in policies on insurance, housing and even protocol at military social events.

...yeah, why is that again? Goddamn am I sick of the Pentagon's and Obama's bleating on this issue.

Considering that most of my political views are to the left of any electable candidate in this country, I am often a de facto single-issue voter...and my issue is gay rights. It nearly always makes sense to vote Democrat rather than Republican on that basis, no matter that the Democrats are far from perfect themselves. Considering that Obama has now crossed into actively opposing a legal repeal (anything else he says is spin control, nobody made him do shit)...well, as his base, I'm rather sick of the treatment of my peers by the President. We'll just see how a disaffected base treats the Democrats. When I am considering a third party--me, who considered a vote for Nader to be nigh-treasonous in 2000--they may be in a spot of bother.

[Simon_Jester]

And it took 20 fucking years. Why the fuck should we get full recognition as human beings on the schedule of the most bigoted?

Alyrium, you're supposed to be a biologist; I'm sure you can tell the difference between "should" and "do." This is not a moral argument, any more than "it's going to take a long time for the government to get round to recognizing that black people aren't inferior ape-men" is. It's a matter of demographics, with no more moral content than a predator-prey population curve and its bloody stupid wasteful crashes.

Try to outrun demographics and you wind up tripping over it.

Ever wonder why I absolutely fucking despise democracy?

In a word, no.

Thing is, I'm not sure you'd actually be getting better treatment from a less broad-based form of tyranny; most tyrants are straight too, you know.

Forcing people from the young-adult demographic to serve alongside members of the minority group in the military makes a shift away from discrimination against the minority more likely, not less.

Save that only a small percentage of young people go into the military. I would argue that the desegregation of the military really did very little, if anything.

And if you demand that social change come all at once or not at all because anything less than the full totality of what you deserve isn't enough, you're going to wind up even more bitter and disappointed than you already are.

Instead it was the choice given to society (by which I mean congress) by the civil rights movement. "You can either deal with us, or the black panthers"

Wouldn't it be nice to think so? Thing is, the Black Panther option was always a colossally bad idea; it just happened to be a somewhat-bad idea for whites along with being a colossally bad idea for blacks. Pink Panthers would not work out better.

That was one and only one term of the equation. The other side was the growing number of Americans whose response to Jim Crow laws was "yeah, why are these things on the books again?" For whom the idea that it was somehow right to be turning firehoses and dogs on black protestors was a complete nonstarter. Members of the majority who would (by and large) damn well fight against mass race riots supported by a radical political movement, but who didn't have the same psychic stake in oppression of blacks that their parents and grandparents born around the turn of the century did.

Which, yes, included a bunch of white guys in their twenties and thirties with memories of military service in a desegregated Army.

A lot of them never marched, never cared much, I'm sure. Their existence was still a necessary condition for the civil rights movement to succeed; had they all been replaced by hardliner racial fanatics, the result would have been a bloodbath that would have failed to achieve full civil rights for the black minority, just as the Civil War failed to do so.

The Civil War was an example of the opposite side of this equation: even huge amounts of violence cannot in and of themselves reverse opinions that reflect the consensus of a majority of the population.

Doing anything other than these options indicates that he does not give a shit about us, save as a political tool (and cannon fodder in the middle east). He wants our votes, but wont give us anything for them. If that is the case, fuck him, and God Damn America.

Honestly, I share the sentiment to a point; I think the farce Obama has made of gay rights is one point that has decided me for voting against him in the next round of primaries, and if at all practical, against him in the general election.

He's too far to the right of me too.

This is a constitutional question. Why the fuck should we need to wait for the old people to keel over and die?

"Should" and "do" are not the same thing, as said before. Again, this is a question of demographics: of the relative size of three groups:

1) People who will (figuratively or literally) fight to keep gay rights from being realized,
2) People who will not fight on either side in the figurative sense, and
3) People who will fight (mostly figuratively, but hell, possibly literally) to achieve gay rights.

(3) will not succeed by literally fighting (1) because blood in the streets mobilizes (2). So long as (1) and (3) exist in comparable numbers, direct confrontation is a stalemate.

(3) can succeed by expanding (2) at the expense of (1), and (3) at the expense of (2), until (1) becomes politically irrelevant as an independent political force (as happened to anti-black bigots in the 1960s and '70s).

The reverse is true too, which is why gaybashers want to promote gaybasher curricula in school. They are smart enough to know that political victory flows from having propaganda superiority over their enemy, and thus maintaining demographic superiority in the long run. Why aren't you?

What's critical is convincing the next cohorts not to follow in their grandparents' footsteps, or at least not to unflinchingly march that road at all costs and no matter who gets hurt. It worked for convincing the troglodytes that black people weren't evil mutant ape-men; it will work for convincing them that gay people aren't evil satanic child molesters.

Doing that took a generation of full integration in the school systems, and mandatory participation by black people. For that condition to hold, and for the fundies to finally stop thinking we are sub-human, we must have FULL legal civil rights. The south did not vote for the Civil Rights Act. They just got outvoted by congressmen from north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Yes. In fact, that's exactly my point.

Do you think there weren't bigots in the North too? There were, and always had been, and that was a key reason why full federally enforced civil rights for blacks didn't happen in the 1870s. Because there were too many Northern whites opposed, and not enough political support for enforcing the civil rights aspect of Reconstruction on the South over the violent objections (literally) of Southern whites.

The president could have ordered federal troops to suppress the KKK, and Congress could have continued to occupy the South and compel them to accept the legal equality of blacks. But the issue of secession having been settled in the Union's favor and the outright enslavement of blacks being over, there wasn't enough support left for the Radical Republican cause to make that viable: the costs of the occupation would have eventually destroyed any administration or congress that tried to maintain it. Thus, Southern (and northern!) blacks suffered a political defeat.

Again, political victory flows out of demographics, and out of convincing the demographics that will be in a position to decide the outcome. There must be enough people pro to at least cancel out the people contra.

[Bakustra]

It's worth noting at this point that the US Army did forcibly shut down the KKK in the 1860s and 1870s, and the civil rights portions of Reconstruction were enforced, and blacks did get elected to Congress in large numbers (in fact, I think that Congress at the time was more representative of the country demographically than Congress today)- but all those things came undone when Reconstruction ended, because without continuous force, bigotry triumphed. (The KKK returned later and transitioned to being a broader reactionary group). Even then, there still had to be continuous reinforcement and incitement of racial hatreds in order to ensure that the system lasted. I think that the analogies are clear.

[Akhlut]

A lot of them never marched, never cared much, I'm sure. Their existence was still a necessary condition for the civil rights movement to succeed; had they all been replaced by hardliner racial fanatics, the result would have been a bloodbath that would have failed to achieve full civil rights for the black minority, just as the Civil War failed to do so.

The Civil War was an example of the opposite side of this equation: even huge amounts of violence cannot in and of themselves reverse opinions that reflect the consensus of a majority of the population.

This isn't quite true. Immediately after the Civil War, one saw a lot of movement, especially in the North, to help make black people more equal, if not completely so, with white people. Black people were appointed to positions of postmasters, were allowed to be part of desegregated sports leagues, and similar matters. It wasn't full equality by a long shot, but had Lincoln not been shot in the head, it may well have resulted in preventing the nadir of race relations in the US from occurring due to President Andrew Johnson's concessions to the white south. Such concessions, along with racial terror from the KKK and the establishment of Jim Crow laws, broke apart a formative racial egalitarian movement in the US.

However, this is very different from queer rights in the US. They are neither chattel slaves, nor are we seeing threats of secession over the issue, so widespread violence similar to the US Civil War would be unwise, to say the least.

Doing anything other than these options indicates that he does not give a shit about us, save as a political tool (and cannon fodder in the middle east). He wants our votes, but wont give us anything for them. If that is the case, fuck him, and God Damn America.

Honestly, I share the sentiment to a point; I think the farce Obama has made of gay rights is one point that has decided me for voting against him in the next round of primaries, and if at all practical, against him in the general election.

He's too far to the right of me too.

Ah, something we can all agree on!

Yes. In fact, that's exactly my point.

Do you think there weren't bigots in the North too? There were, and always had been, and that was a key reason why full federally enforced civil rights for blacks didn't happen in the 1870s. Because there were too many Northern whites opposed, and not enough political support for enforcing the civil rights aspect of Reconstruction on the South over the violent objections (literally) of Southern whites.

Having a weak president who wanted to appease the South didn't help either. Similarly to our current state of affairs.

[SVPD]

You are assuming that they aren't under pressure from their own higher ups to do just that; to look the other way for a time until there is less of a manpower shortfall.

I'm not assuming it at all. I know that it's the case because I was deployed and I never saw any such pressure. In fact I never saw the issue come up, and since I was a staff officer at both battalion and division level HQs and was involved with conducting summary courts martial, I would have known if anything like that was going on. There is no such pressure in the battalion I'm in now, and since I happen to be the intelligence officer, I would know since any such proceedings would affect elgiability for access to classified information. With a very few exceptions, such as the Arab linguist shortage, there's no significant effect on manpower that could be achieved this way. Even in cases like that, commanders have not done this; they have gone ahead and chaptered the soldiers and damn the cost to manpower. There's also the fact that chaptering them after they get home from a deployment does nothing to help the manpower problem outside that particular unit and that particular deployment.

More to the point, you're just transferring the same cynicism higher up the line to higher ranking officers and making the same assumptions about them. You're also transferring the same risks of playing fast and loose with policy. Sure, there are some officers who are so callous and unethical as to do this, and willing to risk getting in trouble for not acting on credible information. I don't know if this is just because of the typical stereotyping of military officers that goes on among many people with zero military experience or what, but it's not legitimate.

And IIRC that is the pattern actually seen; when there's a war on the effort to kick out the gays slacks off until it's over, and then out they go. Unfortunately my google skills fail at getting me a cite either way.

You "IIRC" from where exactly?

Yes, the military reduces the chaptering out of soldiers during a war. This has nothing to do with homosexuals; soldiers that are overweight or can't pass a physical fitness test don't get kicked out either. That doesn't mean you can deploy a fat guy, then kick him out when you get home because he was fat before you left. You have to give him a chance. Similarly, you can't not act on credible information until after a deployment, then suddenly decide its credible. That's essentially saying you only uphold military policies when its convenient, which is not acceptable behavior for an officer.

[Serafina]

Does anyone have the slightest idea why Obama is trying to appease the right-wingers?
I just don't get it, i see no logical or political reason to do so.

[Jaevric]

Does anyone have the slightest idea why Obama is trying to appease the right-wingers?
I just don't get it, i see no logical or political reason to do so.

I'm hoping his intentions are less "appease the right wingers," and more "get a change made to military law through legislation to fully legalize being a homosexual soldier." In this case, I can understand a certain concern that simply having the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy repealed will make it more difficult to garner legislative support for a more radical policy change -- particularly after what may be a disastrous midterm election for the Democrats, people may think simply having DADT removed is sufficient. Coming out and stating this up-front would only motivate the Republican religious-fundy base even more. Unfortunately, I think not doing so is hurting the enthusiasm of people who would normally support the Democrats.

Alternately, he really is trying to appease the Republicans in the hopes of minimizing the damage to the Democrats in the mid-term elections, in which case the only logical conclusion I can reach is that our President has gone clinically insane or is sufficiently insulated from reality that he has not noticed that the Republicans cannot be appeased by anything a Democrat does because it is a Democrat doing it.

[Bakustra]

Does anyone have the slightest idea why Obama is trying to appease the right-wingers?
I just don't get it, i see no logical or political reason to do so.

What do you mean by "trying to appease"? My guess is that his objection to this ruling is that it appears to make the legislation moot, but it actually doesn't- it merely shuts down DADT, but homosexuals are still banned. So a Republican Congress can just ban homosexuals from the military unless the law is changed. But now you'd have people complaining about redundancy. This also adds fuel to the perpetual fire about "activist judges". When it comes to the appeals, who knows. Is it because it's traditional to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court? Is it because Obama secretly hates the gays and wants them all marginalized? Is it because individual prosecutors are pushing forward? Is it because Obama wants this set in stone by the Supreme Court and is gambling on a narrow 5-4 victory for civil rights? My guess is that most people here will vote for option 2, but it's hard to tell.

As for general appeasement, there are three things to keep in mind. The first is ideology. Obama is ideologically centrist, and I guess he doesn't really believe in massive restructuring or government programs. That might be the case. In addition, he has a ideologically disunified party facing an ideologically lockstepped opposition party. The second is structural issues. The opposition can shut legislation down at any time, and if they gather 41 votes, will be able to do this indefinitely. So you need the cooperation of the opposition in order to do anything, unless you have 60 votes or more- but it's rare for that to happen on paper and virtually impossible in reality. (People will cross the aisle just to protest if nothing else). The third is that he has the potential of facing a minority government- which means that if he had gone "take-no-prisoners" as idiots wanted him to, then he would be at odds with Congress for the rest of the term, and a more activist and radical Congress than Bush faced.

EDIT: Of course, that is not to say that this is all perfectly reasonable- he's probably neglecting several important factors, but he still really doesn't have a choice one way or the other, except maybe making things even worse.

Possibly the best hope for the Democratic Party and the Obama administration would be (though I suspect that this is an outside chance) for the Tea Party candidates to win in such numbers, and be so sincere and bullheaded that Boehner can't control them and they splinter the unity the Republicans have. There, I think you would see Snowe and Collins and other moderate Republicans crossing the aisle more frequently. Again, this probably isn't that likely- the party leadership is probably experienced enough to bring them in line.

[Bakustra]

Alternately, he really is trying to appease the Republicans in the hopes of minimizing the damage to the Democrats in the mid-term elections, in which case the only logical conclusion I can reach is that our President has gone clinically insane or is sufficiently insulated from reality that he has not noticed that the Republicans cannot be appeased by anything a Democrat does because it is a Democrat doing it.

This is a historical aberration, though, and responding to it by trying to shut the minority party out will only make the problem worse and poison American politics for the next generation at least.

[Simon_Jester]

It's worth noting at this point that the US Army did forcibly shut down the KKK in the 1860s and 1870s, and the civil rights portions of Reconstruction were enforced, and blacks did get elected to Congress in large numbers (in fact, I think that Congress at the time was more representative of the country demographically than Congress today)- but all those things came undone when Reconstruction ended, because without continuous force, bigotry triumphed. (The KKK returned later and transitioned to being a broader reactionary group). Even then, there still had to be continuous reinforcement and incitement of racial hatreds in order to ensure that the system lasted. I think that the analogies are clear.

That's my point.

In the Reconstruction era, it was possible to maintain equality by force, by a combination of enfranchising blacks and disenfranchising a large number of ex-Confederate whites, by keeping garrisons in the South to suppress outbreaks of anti-black violence, and so on. In the North, the force of law had the same effect: bigotry was less entrenched and therefore did not need to be suppressed at gunpoint.

But the use of federal troops to keep a system of equality in place was a stopgap measure, one that could not survive indefinitely. There were not enough people in the North willing to permanently garrison the South purely for the purpose of making sure black Southerners (or for that matter black Northerners) remained first-class citizens. There were too many people in the North opposed to doing so, because they didn't want blacks to be first-class citizens.

Thus, as soon as the afterglow of the crusade-against-slavery aspect of the war faded and peacetime conditions were restored, Reconstruction came to an end. The cloud of Jim Crow descended upon the South- and the North. There were too many Americans (North and South alike) in favor of segregation, and not enough who were hostile or indifferent to the idea.

Change began to come after World War Two not just because of the actions of those hostile to segregation, but because of indifference. Indifferent people do not go to the polls to fight for inequality, any more than they do for equality. Indifference may not be admirable, but it is better than hostility.

---

Reform cannot happen until, at a bare minimum, the plurality of the people are indifferent to it. If there is a large hostile minority, the reformers face endless trouble; if the hostile minority outweighs the friendly minority, nothing will happen at all. That was the problem faced by blacks after the Civil War: too many anti-black whites and not enough pro-equality people to offset them. That problem continued right up into and through the 1950s, and reached a tipping point in the 1960s, as old bigots died and were replaced by people who were, if not pro-equality, at least indifferent and willing to let segregation die.

I'm not sure exactly where we stand on this subject today. But it is critical to realize that the fight for gay rights is going to be decided not just by mobilizing people in favor of it, but by converting the general public from being hostile to gays to simply being indifferent. By convincing people that the correct answer to the question "should gays be allowed to marry?" is "Meh. Sure, why not? Not my problem" instead of "OH GOD NO!"

Granted you'd prefer to hear "YES!" instead of "Meh." But "Meh." sure beats "NO!" Put another way:

30% of the population in favor, 55% indifferent, and 15% opposed is a recipe for success.
30% of the population in favor, 40% indifferent, and 30% opposed is a recipe for failure, or at best a stalemate.

The gaybashers know this, which is why they fight so ferociously over school curriculum and why they oppose the idea of letting people think of homosexuality as an "acceptable lifestyle." Because every person who thinks homosexuality is "acceptable" is one lost to their camp, and sucked into the mass of indifferent people who are useless to them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What courts ruled in favor of civil rights for blacks before the American Civil War? I can't think of any. You have your order a little mixed up, and frankly I don't see a civil war (or not one that supporters of LGBT rights can win, if it comes to that) coming anytime soon.

I was referring not to chronological order, but in terms of frequency. A lot of things came out of the civil war, and I am treating them separately. Acts of congress are usually done in response to things the courts initiate etc.

There are two ways it can go; social change (which is happening) can bring about the necessary changes in the electorate and therefore the elected and their laws at the rate of generational change, or a pro-homosexual insurrection of some sort can piss everybody off.

Or you can go through the federal courts and bring about the necessary conditions for more rapid social change. You ever wonder the fundies use "protecting our schoolchildren [from talk about gay marriage being legally acceptable]" as a dog whistle? Because they know as well as anyone that once someone is legally equal, being socially equal follows suit. Gay marriage needs to exist and be recognized before people will realize that the institution will remain in tact. This is why I dont worry about the inevitable constitutional amendment attempt in Iowa. Just waiting for old people to die is a horrible strategy.

And if you demand that social change come all at once or not at all because anything less than the full totality of what you deserve isn't enough, you're going to wind up even more bitter and disappointed than you already are.

Federal recognition of state gay marriages, followed by or at the same time as the courts striking down DADT. That would be what would be consistent and not a slap in our faces. I have no illusions. I am not getting much from most states for a long fucking time, but there is no excuse for the feds. It is not as if the federal government, particularly the courts, is really all that accountable to the people anyway. As far as the courts are concerned, there is little point in having them review the constitutionality of laws if they are slaves to demographics. They are unelected for a reason.

Wouldn't it be nice to think so? Thing is, the Black Panther option was always a colossally bad idea; it just happened to be a somewhat-bad idea for whites along with being a colossally bad idea for blacks. Pink Panthers would not work out better.

I am not actually proposing that we use something like that. Simply that it was not the integration of the military that paved the way. Rather, it was integration of the school system, and the dichotomy between the black panthers and the peaceful protesters. Attitudes toward blacks did not and could not change until the schools were integrated and children realized that their parents were actively wrong about black people from their own experiences. In the same way, marriage will never become democratically permitted until the courts force it on the population (just as they did for school integration), and the population realize that the sky will not fall.

Norms can only change through the actual practices of society changing. It cannot go the other way around where something becomes acceptable and then done. It has to be done, and then become acceptable.

That was one and only one term of the equation. The other side was the growing number of Americans whose response to Jim Crow laws was "yeah, why are these things on the books again?"

That only happened after the law was changed.

The reverse is true too, which is why gaybashers want to promote gaybasher curricula in school. They are smart enough to know that political victory flows from having propaganda superiority over their enemy, and thus maintaining demographic superiority in the long run. Why aren't you?

Integration of the school system did NOT happen with the popular support of those who were affected by it. Not only did the people in their 20s and 30s have memories of serving in a desegregated army, a far far larger percentage of them had memories of studying in a desegregated school. This is more analagous to our current situation. The military makes up less than a percent of our population. Allowing gay people to serve in it (while being slapped in the face by their lack of equality even while within the military), will not substantially change the viewpoint of the population. Allowing marriage will. Legally normalizing gay people into society as a whole will.

Again, political victory flows out of demographics, and out of convincing the demographics that will be in a position to decide the outcome. There must be enough people pro to at least cancel out the people contra.

Not when the numbers are this close. Yeah, forcing integration in the 1870s would have been a bad idea. When the discrepancy is that big, yeah, you have to wait a hundred years. However we do not have nearly the same level of bigotry that existed then. We have a level and distribution of bigotry similar to that if the 1950s. The problem is not that we do not have sufficient votes in the POPULATION to support us. That demographic hurdle has been reached already. It is that you cant get them to fucking vote.

[RogueIce]

[Federal recognition of state gay marriages, followed by or at the same time as the courts striking down DADT. That would be what would be consistent and not a slap in our faces. I have no illusions. I am not getting much from most states for a long fucking time, but there is no excuse for the feds. It is not as if the federal government, particularly the courts, is really all that accountable to the people anyway. As far as the courts are concerned, there is little point in having them review the constitutionality of laws if they are slaves to demographics. They are unelected for a reason.

Remember this part of the article?

The legal moves come as the Pentagon studies how gay people can be properly integrated into the US military, an effort that would entail dramatic changes in policies on insurance, housing and even protocol at military social events.

Bolded mine.

If the study comes back and policies are made such that, for example, anybody with a marriage license recognized as valid by the issuing state is entitled to dependent housing, surivival benefits, ID card and exchange privileges, etc would mean that just as soon as some gay servicemember from some state that has legal gay marriages goes to get all that done for his/her spouse, that in effect equates to the federal government (or a part of it, at least) recognizing gay marriage as valid. Ideally this is done with a change in the law from Congress repealing the "no homosexuals" provisions in the USC and UCMJ and changes in DOD policy (which, from the excerpt above, seems to be at least part of what they're working on now).

I think the concern many here have about the court ruling is that it could inspire a weak-willed Congress to just comfort themselves with the fact that "the courts" took care of DADT for them and do nothing else. Leaving the laws on the books at least as long as somebody does a lawsuit to get those overturned as well.

Now granted, if gay soldiers are allowed to serve openly, denying a legitimately married couple dependent housing is probably an IG complaint just waiting to happen, and might result in policies getting changed the hard way. But I think that's part of the 'cause difficulties for the military' Obama seems worried about (being generous here, I know). If you just allow gay people to serve openly before DOD has had time to update policies to take it into account, you're going to have a lot more problems than if you waited until they were 'ready' (and not just in the "lol bigots" sense).

As far as Congress actually changing the laws, maybe I just have a bit more confidence than you. From what I've seen, most of the arguments against run along the lines of how it would "hurt the military" and such. Well if the military publishes their report in December detailing not just the fact that it won't hurt them, but also showing just how they'll be able to deal with it successfully, that pretty much deflates that argument. And as much as people laugh at America's 'fetish' with the military, in this case it could be a good thing. The military itself says that yes, they can handle gays serving openly. Why are you arguing against the military?

[Bakustra]

Wrong. Public opinion was turning before the ruling, seeing as a) the government moved to enforce it and b) most of the nation outside of the South complied. In fact, most of the Northeast and all the Upper Midwest had already specifically banned it. Had there been the lack of public support you had suggested, it would have gone the way of Worcester v. State of Georgia. For that matter, Brown was the eleventh case before the Supreme Court to challenge Plessy v. Ferguson and segregated schools.

Simply saying that court decisions change social attitudes is not really supportable by the case of desegregation.

For that matter, support for legalizing gay marriage has been hovering around 50% for the past few years. I think that the votes will soon be there, yes.