Obama, Congressional leaders meet on DADT

Timothy Kincaid

May 24th, 2010

This morning President Obama, Congressional leaders, Pentagon leaders, and gay rights groups had various meetings to discuss Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I wish that I could report that the President has whole-heartedly given his endorsement to the Congressional effort to overturn the discriminatory policy this week.

But unfortunately, it appears that Obama called in Congress to get concessions that will delay implementation of the change in policy and which will not actually overturn the ban but simply return the decision about implementation to the Pentagon. (Washington Post)

Any repeal would take effect only after President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen review the Pentagon study and certify that the new law can be implemented without a negative impact on military readiness, recruitment and retention, according to the sources.

This may be the best we can get. Should the President oppose the effort to lift the ban on open service in the Military, or even fail to signal acceptance of the change, this could trigger defeat. The vote count is very close.

It is important that the vote occur before any change in Congressional membership. It is very possible that one or both houses of Congress could be turned over to Republican control, and it is unlikely that Republican Party leadership would bring the bill to a vote regardless of the conclusions of the study.

And while I would prefer that Congress tell the Military that is will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation whether it finds that restriction to be minorly inconvenient or not, that may not be an option.

UPDATE: The NY Times confirms the details:

Under the deal, lawmakers could vote soon to repeal the contentious 17-year-old policy, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed services; the House Democratic leaders are considering taking up the measure as soon as this week. But the policy would not change until sometime after Dec. 1, when the Pentagon completes a review of its readiness to deal with the new policy. President Obama would also be required to certify that repeal would not harm military readiness.

In a letter to Mr. Obama on Monday evening, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Lieberman and Senator Carl M. Levin, the Armed Services Committee chairman, asked the White House for its “official views” on the proposal.

But Capitol Hill aides said the letter was pro forma; Mr. Obama’s budget director, Peter R. Orszag, quickly replied with the White House’s assent.

It is encouraging to know that when backed into a corner without any way of saving face, the President is our fierce advocate. But hey, I’ll take it and be happy.

Marcelle Wyzdyx

May 24th, 2010

This is a bit confusing; the headline says DOMA, but the story seems to be about DADT.

Ben in Oakland

May 24th, 2010

So, in short, they will repeal DADT, but let the pentagon decide what it wants to do. sort of the domestic partnership (just the same as marriage, except that it isn’t).

that way they can say they repealed it, but can tell the conservatives they left it in place. Not their fualt any more. sort of like an barely adult version of simon says.

Do they think we’re total idiots? What happened to the common meaning of the promises Obama made in is SOTU speech?

Our Fierce Advocate My Ass.

Burr

May 24th, 2010

This is idiotic cowardice. Democrats are going to lose because of a bajillion other reasons. Sabotaging a DADT repeal is not going to endear them to independents or conservatives.

Timothy Kincaid

May 24th, 2010

Marcelle,

Drat those acronyms!! :)

It has been fixed

Rob in San diego

May 24th, 2010

“……and certify that the new law can be implemented without a negative impact on military readiness, recruitment and retention, according to the sources.”

REALLY? Did anyone think to ask that very same question when they invented DADT and started kicking out highly trained professionals with the necessary skills to keep this country safe? No sadly to say they never thought about that. Now were full of empty headed homophobic soldiers who have replaced the highly skilled gay officers. In fact, didn’t we even have to lower the standards of what it takes to become enlisted over the last 8 years because we needed to fill the positions of those that they’ve kicked out?

cd

May 25th, 2010

The Obama people had better be sure they know the conclusions of this “study” already.

Jason D

May 25th, 2010

Rob,
There’s a law on the books with the military which bans gays from serving in the military PERIOD. This law(rule, policy, whatever) pre-dates DADT.

DADT was actually supposed to be a compromise as Clinton was preparing to end the ban altogether.

Timothy Kincaid

May 25th, 2010

Jason,

I believe you are mistaken and that prior to 1993, the gay ban was an administrative policy, not a law.

If you know otherwise, please provide a link to that law.

Jason D

May 25th, 2010

Tim, read my comment again. I think it’s rather clear what I’m talking about.

Timothy Kincaid

May 25th, 2010

Yeah, I don’t think we are in disagreement.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1970: New York Times Looks At "Homosexuals In Revolt"

Today In History, 1977: "The Advocate" Reports Another FBI Document Dump On Gay Rights Groups

Today In History, 1977: Houston Klan: "We Endorse and Seek the Execution of All Homosexuals"

Today In History, 1988: Canada's Largest Protestant Church Accepts Gay Ordination

Born On This Day, 1917: Chuck Rowland

Born On This Day, 1957: Stephen Fry

Activists Urge Indonesian Court to Criminalize Homosexuality

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.