Box Turtle Bulletin

Orrin Hatch is open to overturning DADT

Senator Orrin Hatch (R – UT) talks with Andrea Mitchell about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

HATCH: I believe that there are very outstanding patriotic gay people who serve in the military and they aught to be given credit for it. And they shouldn’t have to lie about being gay.

On the other hand I think a lot of people are concerned that if you do away with the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, that literally they’ll come back and ask for special rights and preferences and privileges that others don’t have. I, I don’t see that either.

So, ya know, like I say, I just don’t, I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind.

MITCHELL: So you’re willing to vote for the change.

HATCH: Well, I don’t know about that. I’d have to look at it, I’d have to really see, and of course, they recommend, Admiral Mullen said at least a year study by them and then they’ll come out and make the final recommendation. So, at least that’s what I got out of it.

So, I’d like to wait until the end and see what they come up with and see what happens.

But I can see why the people on both sides are upset. I just want to do what’s right.

MITCHELL: So I can put you down as being at least open to the idea. So, uh

HATCH: I am.

MITCHELL: That’s a very interesting statement.

While I would rather hear that Hatch has unequivocal support for overturning the policy, I welcome words of “openness to the idea” from prominent Republicans.

Colin Powell endorses plan to reverse DADT

Three times before, Gen. Colin Powell who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bill Clinton and Secretary of State under George W. Bush, has suggested that the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy be revisited. Now, like Gen. Shalikashvili, he believes the time has come to repeal the ban on open service. (NY Times)

“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don\’t ask, don\’t tell\’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.”

Repealing DADT “May Cause Further Natural Disasters”

Rabbi Yehuda Levin warns of natural disasters if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays in the military, is repealed:

Thirteen months before 9/11, on the day New York City passed homosexual domestic partnership regulations, I joined a group of Rabbis at a City Hall prayer service, pleading with G-d not to visit disaster on the city of N.Y. We have seen the underground earthquake, tsunami, Katrina, and now Haiti. All this is in sync with a two thousand year old teaching in the Talmud that the practice of homosexuality is a spiritual cause of earthquakes. Once a disaster is unleashed, innocents are also victims just like in Chernobyl.

“We plead with saner heads in Congress and the Pentagon to stop sodomization of our military and our society. Enough is enough.”

Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg Wants To Throw You In Jail

Don’t believe me? Then check this out:

Peter Sprigg was on Chris Matthews’s Hardball to talk about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays in the military. Sprigg, of course, is against ending the ban. But skip ahead  to about the 8:15 mark, and you can see what Sprigg really wants to do:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Peter, do you think people choose to be gay?

SPRIGG: Uh, people do not choose to have same-sex attractions, but they do choose to have homosexual conduct. And that’s conduct also , which incidentally is against the law within the military. It violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It doesn’t make any sense for us to be actively recruiting people who are going to be violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: Well, I think certainly it’s defensible.

MATTHEWS: I\’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.

SPRIGG: Yes.

This is the guy who nearly two years ago said we should “export” gays:

Illinois primary elections: what it means

US Senator from Illinois

Republican

Today Illinois Republican voters elected Mark Kirk as their Senate nominee. Kirk, a moderate, has long been an occasional ally of the community. As a Congressman he has voted for ENDA and against the FMA and supports civil unions. During this election, one opponent sought to gain political mileage from rumors that Kirk is, himself, gay.

Kirk is not, however, perfect on our issues. He does not favor marriage equality and has stated that he does not support the reversal of the ban on open service in the Military. (Herald Review)

Kirk said he disagreed with Obama’s call to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

“I’m a member of the U.S. military,” said Kirk, a Naval Reserve intelligence officer. “I don’t think we should change the policy.”

But while Kirk has room for improvement, his positions on our issues are significantly preferable to most other Republican Senators. With 64% of the vote in, Kirk is the clear primary winner with about 58%.

Democrat

In the Democratic primary, the choices were much broader. Alexi Giannoulias and David Hoffman both endorse marriage equality and Cheryle Jackson endorses civil unions. All candidates support ENDA and repealing DADT and DOMA.

A gay long-shot candidate, Jacob Meister, received the endorsement of Stonewall Democrats. Meister withdrew from the race earlier this week and endorsed Giannoulias.

With 64% of the vote, the current tally is

Giannoulias , Alexi 38%
Hoffman , David 35%
Jackson , Cheryle 20%

Illinois Governor

Democrat

The primary contention was between incumbent Pat Quinn, who has served since Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached in January 2009, and Dan Hynes. Quinn supports civil unions and Hynes supports full marriage equality. Hynes received the endorsement of Stonewall Democrats.

With 64% of the vote, Quinn has 51% to Hynes’ 49%. Quinn has held a small lead through all of the precinct counts so far.

Republican

The three five candidates, Kirk Dillard, Andy McKenna, Jim Ryan, Bill Brady, and Adam Andrzejewski all share opposition to civil unions and marriage equality. In their race to be the furthest far-right social-issues troglodyte they seem to be indistinguishable, but Log Cabin suggested that Dillard was the preferable of the bunch so perhaps they have some information that makes him the “lesser of evils”.

With 58% of precincts reporting:

McKenna , Andy 22%
Dillard , Kirk 20%
Brady , Bill 17%
Ryan , Jim 17%
Andrzejewski 15%

APsaA: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell harms soldiers

Dr. Prudence Gourguechon, the President of the American Psychoanalytic Association, has a blog on Psychology Today. She praises the renewed effort to reverse Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and reminds us that her organization has taken a position on this issue based on the well-being of the serviceman.

Our research and clinical experience adds the following psychological ill effects of DADT to the social and military problems mentioned in the Times editorial:

• Increased stress levels are seen in soldiers who are not able to freely access partners and friends back home for needed support

• The emotional toll of keeping sexual orientation hidden is well documented

• Increased isolation of those living under DADT leading to greater vulnerability to stress syndromes.

One has to wonder if the stress on that young straight conservative serviceman being forced to coexist with a gay soldier even remotely compares to the young gay (probably conservative) servicewoman being forced to hide, deny, and lose access to her support network and even her partner. Somehow it makes all the deference to the fragile sensibilities of the sheltered homophobe seem a bit disingenuous.

Gates and Mullen ask for another year before dismantling DADT

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates spoke about “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” before the Senate Armed Services Committee today. Both recommended reversing the law but asked for another year to figure out how to implement the change in policy. (NY Times)

To lead a review of the policy, Mr. Gates appointed a civilian and a military officer: Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon\’s top legal counsel, and Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of the United States Army in Europe. Pentagon officials said the review could take up to a year.

In the interim, Mr. Gates announced that the military was moving toward enforcing the existing policy “in a more humane and fair manner” — a reference to the possibility that the Pentagon would no longer take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law. Mr. Gates said he had asked the Pentagon to make a recommendation on the matter within 45 days, but “we believe that we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform.”

I have a better idea, gentlemen. Rather than wait for your report, Congress should pass the law that entirely eliminates the ban on open service in the Military and give the Pentagon a year in which to put a new policy in place. That way we don’t find ourselves a year down the road with a different Congress and insufficient votes.

In a signal that this policy change will face Republican opposition – regardless of the wishes of the Pentagon – Sen. McCain spoke strongly in opposition. He relied on Elaine Donnelly’s petition which found 1,000 former officers who were willing to put their name down in opposition to equality. McCain presented the petition as though it was a representative study.

Mr. McCain said that a thousand retired admirals and generals had signed a petition against change, and that their views reflected the honest beliefs of military leaders as a whole, whatever Admiral Mullen\’s personal view.

However, such bogus sampling may not hold up to the findings of studies. In addition to the review by Johnson and Ham,

For further information, Mr. Gates said he would ask the Rand Corporation to update a 1993 study on the effect of allowing gay men and women to serve openly. That study concluded that gay service members could serve openly if the policy was given strong support from the military\’s senior leaders.

However, timing is crucial. Any shifting in the Congress towards more Republicans (almost a certainty in this mid-term election) can become an excuse to yet again delay equality for gay Americans.

Reason for DADT comment: pressure, not encouragement

The New York Times has an article about President Obama’s pledge to reverse Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the anti-gay Military policy, in which they report the impetus for movement on the issue:

President Obama and top Pentagon officials met repeatedly over the past year about repealing “don\’t ask, don\’t tell,” the law that bans openly gay members of the military.

But it was in Oval Office strategy sessions to review court cases challenging the ban — ones that could reach the Supreme Court — that Mr. Obama faced the fact that if he did not change the policy, his administration would be forced to defend publicly the constitutionality of a law he had long opposed.

It is interesting that the President’s timing was not swayed by encouragement from gay supporters, but rather as a result of legal actions of a gay group hostile to the administration. Although the Times does not note it, the only lawsuit against DADT which is currently advancing is Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. (Update: The Log Cabin case is, I believe, the only organizational case. There is at least one other individual case.)

Log Cabin, an organization of gay Republicans, will not shade their press releases about their lawsuit in a way that is favorable to the administration or in a way that provides cover. They do not get invited to Obama White House cocktail parties, have access to administration insiders, or have anything else to lose. Nor do they feel constrained by any desire to protect the Democratic Party.

I think that as much as the administration wants to avoid defending constitutionality, they really want to avoid the negative publicity that defending this unjust policy could bring. At it must be especially galling that those accusing the President and his administration of being anti-gay are are group of Republicans.

Senator-Elect Scott Brown talks gay issues

Massachusetts’ newly elected Senator, Scott Brown, spoke with Barbara Walters on ABC This Week and part of the conversation included his stance on issues of importance to the gay community.

On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Military’s ban on service by openly gay men and women.

WALTERS: You have been a member of the National Guard for 30 years. You’ve talked about how important that service is.

BROWN: Yes.

WALTERS: You’re a Lieutenant-Colonel. On Wednesday the president announced that he wants to work with Congress to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell. What’s your view?

BROWN: I think it’s important, because as you know we’re fighting two wars right now. And the most — the first priority is to — is to — is to finish the job, and win those wars. I’d like to hear from the Generals in the field — in the field — the people that actually work with these soldiers to make sure that, you know, the social change is not going to disrupt our ability to finish the job and complete the wars.

WALTERS: But Senator, your own view.

BROWN: That’s my view.

WALTERS: So you can’t say whether you’re for or against it?

BROWN: No. I’m going to wait to speak to the generals on the ground.

I find this exchange both encouraging and troubling.

Obviously Scott Brown has an opinion and is just hedging his bets. And I am not happy that he is discussing the issue as a “social change” and see it in terms of “disrupting”. But it is also nice that the Republican whom the party is lauding as the face of a cultural change is not speaking against the repeal.

Also encouraging is that much of the information that we hear suggests that our problem is with the Pentagon, not with generals in the field. If Brown is sincere – and for now we should give him the benefit of the doubt – there is a good chance that if he does speak to field operations, he’ll hear that good troups are more valuable to the war effort than anti-gay policies. It all depends on whether the officers to whom he speaks have had to lose soldiers that they valued and did not want to let go.

But if Brown is simply looking for an excuse to take an anti-gay position, I’m certain that he can readily find “generals on the ground” who will agree with him. When reporting what you heard from “generals on the ground” (anonymously, of course), they can say anything that your imagination can contrive.

On marriage:

WALTERS: And gay marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts. But the Republican party platform language calls for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, and they want a federal ban on gay marriage. Are you out of step with your party, or do you think that the party has to broaden, and change its platform?

BROWN: Well I’ve always been a big tent person, you know? We need more people to come into our tent to express their views in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
…
And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it’s settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states’ rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis.

Again, this seems to be language that can leave open a lot of options.

It would seem clear that Brown will not support a Federal Marriage Amendment. But if the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, will that be justification for him to vote for a federal amendment to reverse that decision?

And what does this mean for DOMA? Can one truly be “states’ rights” and not support having the federal government honor the marriages of states that provide marriage equality?

We know from his efforts in the Massachusetts legislature that he is not an advocate for marriage equality. But he’s had five years to see that the sky hasn’t fallen and that churches aren’t being shuttered and that his neighbors, liberal and conservative, have come to accept and support the change.

I think there is much to hope for from Scott Brown. We should not expect an ally or even a secure vote on any issues, but if we do not approach him as an enemy I think that it is possible that we will find that Scott Brown could be a crucial bi-partisan vote on some issues of concern to our community.

DADT repeal process started

The Hill is reporting:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen will testify next week on the repeal of a controversial law preventing openly gay people from serving in the military.

“The Joint Chiefs and the Chairman understand perfectly the president\’s intent to see this law repealed,” Kirby said. “They take very seriously their obligation to provide him and Secretary Gates the best military advice about both the impact of repeal and its implementation across the force. They look forward to developing their advice and providing their advice in the near future.”

This testimony will reveal the Pentagon’s strategy for lifting the ban on open service. (Fox News)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen will unveil next week a plan to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Thursday.

The military officials will lay out their plan when they testify in front of the Senate Armed Services next Tuesday.

Morrell said the Pentagon is not bringing a legislative proposal to Capitol Hill, but rather an assessment of steps that need to be taken internally to get to the point to change the law.

This testimony may not yield complete agreement. However, the much noted response of the military leaders to Obama’s appeal to lift the ban may not be an indication of disapproval.

When Obama asked Congress to repeal the law in the speech, Gates stood and applauded, while Mullen and the Joint Chiefs remained stoic.

A source close to Mullen said the rest of the chiefs follow Mullen’s lead and will clap only when he does. On Wednesday night, Mullen did not feel it was appropriate to show either support or contempt for such a politically charged issue, the source said.

Next week’s testimony may provide insight to whether the issue will be contentious. The public overwhelmingly supports lifting the ban, but many legislators have used the Military’s opposition as a cover.

While many legislators may oppose lifting the ban out of anti-gay animus, if the Pentagon endorsed the proposal it will make it difficult to find an objection that can be portrayed to the constituents as both principled and supportive of the military.

The Republican response doesn’t address Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

With each State of the Union address, the party not occupying the White House issues its response. And while a President may lay out his intentions, the response can often clarify which plans will flow smoothly and which will face fierce resistance.

This year the Republican response was presented by Bob McDonnell, the newly elected Governor of Virginia. And in a speech that in some ways reflected his campaign, McDonnell avoided social issues and focused on jobs, the role of government, and taxes and regulations. Most importantly, he said nothing in response to the President’s promise to “work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

This does not mean that the Party avoided all response to the issue of gays in the Military. John McCain, the 2008 party nominee, responded with a statement:

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don\’t Ask, Don\’t Tell\’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.

“This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

However, it should be noted that this rebuttal is the McCain response, not the Republican response. If I’m evaluating this situation correctly, the Republican Party will be expending little capital this year in opposing the change in Military policy.

And it may be a stretch to read too much into this, but I think I am beginning to see a pattern emerge. It appears to me that anti-gay policies may be shifting from being Official Republican Positions to becoming the positions of Republicans. And this instance is not the only indication of a shift; here are a few other indications.

Recognizing a decline in emphasis on “values issues” within recent elections, some conservatives have been seeking to impose a litmus test on candidates which they would have to pass in order to receive support or funding from the Party. They sought to require that all Republican candidates agree with at least eight of ten key points, including “retention of the Defense of Marriage Act”. It was an effort to diminish moderates and other “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only).

Although most Republicans could agree on many of the positions, party leadership strongly opposed the effort. Chairman Michael Steele said,

“Every community should have responsibility for deciding who best represents their values, their interests, their principles. I trust them to do that. It is not the business of the RNC,” Steele said. “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed if the party moved in that direction.”

Leaders recognize that purity tests would eliminate the Party’s ability to run candidates in more liberal parts of the country and pointed out that Massachusetts’ Scott Brown likely could not have passed the test. Yesterday, at the RNC’s winter meeting, the state party leaders voted unanimously to reject the proposed restriction.

Another indication that the Party may be allowing dissension on gay issues is the recent public support for gay marriage from John McCain’s wife and daughter. The senator took the opposite position, thus presenting an image that one can be a “good McCain” and, indeed, a “good Republican” and hold differing opinions on issues surrounding gay equality. Nor did party officials loudly condemn Cindy McCain; indeed, it seemed as if they wanted to avoid any discussion of the issue.

Reluctance to visibly oppose marriage equality can also be seen in the response to the District of Columbia’s decision to enact marriage equality. A mere handful of legislators (29) signed an amicus brief in support of having a referendum and visibility on the issue has been scarce. In an election year, the Republican Party has elected not to make gay marriage in the nation’s capital much of an issue at all.

Now, I do not expect that Republicans are now going to immediately become allies of our community. Nor do I have any hope for an outbreak of Republican support for marriage equality.

Also I think that the Dede Scozzafava situation has shown us that hardcore conservatives will not readily or happily accept much divergence from their anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-freedom agenda. They will fight the “big tent” ideology with the vast resources they can muster and will at times be successful.

But I do think that perhaps signals are being sent from Party leaders that individual Republican legislators are free to take positions in opposition to DADT or in favor of ENDA without facing official repercussions or Party sanctions. And, while this could all change at a moment’s notice, I hope that taken together, these signs indicate that the days of the Republican Party using the gay community as a convenient scapegoat for all of the nation’s ills are waning.

Obama: Finally Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

The President’s State of the Union address, I thought, was one of the finest addresses ever given. He chastised the largest majority in recent history for its failure to get substantial work done, and he challenged the minority to live up to its responsibility to offer solutions if it is going to insist that a 60-vote super-majority will be required to get anything done in the Senate. This is a fighting spirit that has been missing from the White House over the past year. I frankly hope the President recognizes that change requires leadership from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, leadership which won’t come from the mob on Capital Hill.

But hope and reality are two different things. And given what we’ve seen over the past year, it’s  hard to get too excited over this particular part of the President’s address:

My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network calls for a sense of urgency:

We applaud the President tonight for his call to Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year. We very much need a sense of urgency to get this done in 2010. We call on the President to repeal the archaic 1993 law in his defense budget currently now being drafted, that is probably the only and best moving bill where DADT can be killed this year. As Rep. Patrick Murphy and Sen. Gillibrand have made clear, this is the year to repeal the law. What is also needed is more attention and leadership to win repeal. The American public, including conservatives, is overwhelmingly with the commander in chief on this one.

Shalikashvili says the time is now

General John Shalikashvili was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. As such he was largely responsible for implementing the Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy.

In January 2007, General Shalikashvili wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he state that he no longer believes that open service from gay men and women would undermine the efficacy of the armed forces and proposed that the policy should be given serious reconsideration. But he was hesitant about the timing.

But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.

By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation\’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.

Last June, he reiterated his belief that the policy should be changed “with proper timing”. (Wathington Post)

While the proper timing of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” remains uncertain, it is evident to me that a policy change is inevitable. More than three-quarters of the public favors the change. Polls show that even a majority of Republicans support allowing openly gay people to serve. Within the military, the climate has changed dramatically since 1993. Conversations I’ve held with service members make clear that, while the military remains a traditional culture, that tradition no longer requires banning open service by gays. There will undoubtedly be some teething pains, but I have no doubt our leadership can handle it.

He stated that the change was inevitable and that officers should begin preparing troops for that eventuality.

Now it seems that General John Shalikashvili has found the right time:

As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military. It is time to repeal “don\’t ask, don\’t tell” and allow our military leaders to create policy that holds our service members to a single standard of conduct and discipline.

President May Address DADT in State of the Union Message

The Marine Corps Times reports that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) was expected announcement of hearings on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on LGBT people from serving in the military, but that announcement has been delayed at the request of the White House. The Administration’s request that Levin hold off on the announcement until after Wednesday’s State of the Union Address is fueling expectations that President Barack Obama may announce that military leaders will support changing the law.

The Marine Corps Times says that Sen. Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, is committed to holding hearings in February. However Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), the House Armed Services Committee chairman, says he will oppose any attempts by the Obama Administration to change the 1993 law.

Richard Socarides: Obama and DADT

Richard Socarides was Pres. Bill Clinton’s special assistant and senior White House adviser on gay rights from 1997 to 1999. In an op-ed in this morning’s Wall Street Journal, he asks whether President Barack Obama is more interested in the constitutional rights for Guantanamo detainees than for LGBT citizens serving the military fighting terrorism:

What is especially troubling, however, is Mr. Obama’s oversensitivity to a dwindling minority of bigots on this issue. Hundreds of military careers have been destroyed on his watch for no valid reason. The country has been deprived of the talents of these service members and has wasted millions of dollars on their training.

Many wonder when their president will show the same kind of concern for the constitutional rights of gay American service members as he has for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. Many wonder what the administration’s willingness to treat gay Americans as second-class citizens says to Uganda and other countries that are considering laws that would subject gays to imprisonment and even death.

Gay Americans have been among the president’s most ardent supporters. Their enthusiasm, and that of their families and friends, could be crucial in this year’s elections. The president’s action—or inaction—on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be noticed.