« Towleroad Guide to the Tube #412 |
Main
| Chicago Paper Reveals Obama's Early Support for Same-Sex Marriage »
01/13/2009
Will Obama Get Rid of the Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy?
Incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has the one-word answer,
AFTER THE JUMP...
From the transition team's "Open for Questions" series. (via americablog)
Posted 5:15 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Military, News, Robert Gibbs | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Yes! Well, at least they want us to be optomistic, and aren't being evasive like the last administration.
But don't hold your breath.
Posted by: TR | Jan 13, 2009 5:46:05 PM
I don't ordinarily believe politicians when they make commitments to the LGBTQ community, but this time, I really hope its true.
Now keep in mind that I have no interest in joining the armed forces, and see little point in war (although I'm not sure I would use the term pacifist), but I understand that if true, this could be a great win for the LGBTQ community in gaining equal rights. DADT holds symbolic and significant power. It, in no indecisive terms, asserts that LGB individuals are dangerous, demoralizing, or otherwise deviant in some way. And while I shirk at the concept of assimilation, it would show that gay, lesbian, and bisexual men, women and otherwise are just as able to interact in working relationships with the same gender as those of opposite genders have for decades.
Viva la revolution! (Assuming that this is one promise a certain politician will keep).
Posted by: ANON | Jan 13, 2009 5:55:02 PM
When something is actually done, then I will jump up and down.
Otherwise, words without ACTION mean nothing.
Posted by: FunMe | Jan 13, 2009 6:06:58 PM
As a Air Force vet of only 7 years there's only one reason there's any opposition to gays in the military and that's because the officer and a lot of senior enlisted ranks are filled with selfrighteous evangelical wingnuts. No other western nation that has gays and lesbian in the service have this "religious" problem. Nor do they have a problem with gays. The civilain leaders run the military not the other way around.
Posted by: James Poppinga | Jan 13, 2009 6:10:44 PM
Why does anyone even WANT to serve in the military? I would do my best to stay out of it.
Posted by: Frank | Jan 13, 2009 6:49:21 PM
my one word reply: YES!!!!
Posted by: KFLO | Jan 13, 2009 7:08:45 PM
One reason this is important:
The military is the largest employer in the US.
Posted by: kevinvt | Jan 13, 2009 8:18:52 PM
This is what I've hoped for - that DADT will be removed and servicemembers will be able to serve openly. Ultimately this will bring same-sex marriage into play on a federal level which is what we want: if we are equal enough to die for our country then we should be equal enough to marry the one we love as well. I've been telling my friends for the past 2 years that this is what I suspected would happen - most people outside the military don't really care, they don't have a problem with LGB people serving and frankly neither do many of the straights in the military. This could provide us with a "perfect storm" of the recognition of gay and lesbian people in the US: with DADT gone the door is opened wide for those couples who would like to marry but have been unable to due to one or both being in the military. Like everything else we'll just have to wait and see.
Posted by: ZnSD | Jan 13, 2009 9:42:11 PM
Do not hold your breath. Obama has stated that it will be at least 2010 before he takes up the issue of DADT. A mid-term election year for congress. Yeah, if you were a congressman with the lowest approval rating in history and the worst economy since the depression, would you take on the hot potato of DADT? Probably not. And if it is not discussed in 2010 what about 2011? Probably too close to Obama trying to get re-elected himself!
So will I be beyond happy if DADT were gone? HELL YES! My partner spent 10 years in the military and was a pilot in the first gulf war. However, do I think Obama will step up, no. He has one hell of a legacy to consider. If I am wrong I will be the first one to admit it, and I hope that I am wrong, but I do not see it.
Posted by: RB | Jan 13, 2009 10:56:46 PM
Hey RB, I too hope that you are wrong about politics delaying repeal of DADT (and DoMA) until the second Obama term; however, I doubt it. Obama, if nothing else (and I believe that he is more) is a master political strategist. He ran a brilliant campaign against the Clinton machine and he out manuevered them at every turn. He and his staff have learned from the first term Clinton debacles on DADT and health care. They are not about to repeat their mistakes.
He will probably appoint a commission to study this "very important issue" of DADT (in typical Washington fashion) well into his second term. Will he try to placate all his constituencies, including gays? Of course! Will he disappoint all his constituencies? Absolutely!
That said, I return to the foundational reason that I voted for Obama and will continue to support him--despite my rage at the very public backhand that is the Warren invitation--because it all comes down to The Supremes. Any and every choice that Obama will make will be many times better for the gay community (and, I believe, the country as a whole) than any choice that would have been made by McCain. Look at McCain's petulant and mean-spirited choice of Palin. McCain was and never would become briefable. Obama, on the other hand is perhaps too cautious for many but is a master of gamesmanship and strategy. He will achieve his goals--but on his timetable--not ours. That Obama's goals will benefit the gay community over the long term, I have no doubt.
Posted by: rudy | Jan 14, 2009 8:20:13 AM
My friend Rudy, it is always a pleasure to read your posts! I actually agree with you on many points and that is a source of much of my anger. I do see Obama as a "true" politician". So much so that I cannot believe him! That is what really angers me.
I saw through his political correctness, his good speach making to see a person that I believe to be lacking in real beliefs. I do not believe that he has anyone's best interest at heart above his own. We were simply the sacrificial lambs of his campaign. He is not even in office yet and the LGBT community is already up in arms over his choices.
He has no intention of stepping down on Warren. He has no intention of moving forward with the repealing of DADT in the near future. And lets be honest, time is on our side. Every ten years a whole new generation of young Americans come to voting age and they as a group do not give a damn about gay! So, DADT and marriage are only a matter of time.
However, Obama ran his campaign, making promises that he knew he would not or COULD not keep. That is what makes me so angry about who we have elected. I will take the devil I know ANYDAY over the one that promises me a line and then stabs me in the back.
Again, if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. However, I do not think that I am. And again, Rudy, always a pleasure my friend. You posts are insightful and thought provoking. Trust me, I am listening to what you are saying.
Posted by: RB | Jan 14, 2009 8:52:28 AM
RB, you nailed it! Time is indeed on our side, that is, full equality for gays. That is precisely why I focus on The Supremes. A McCain administration would have run the very real risk of cementing in place the old anti-gay attitudes--and judicial precedents--on The Court for another generation, at least.
Justice moves very slowly because judges tend to be older and more conservative than the general population. That is why more good can come from Obama's likely appointments to the federal bench in the shorter term than would have occurred with any other candidate. Of course politicians promise what they cannot deliver; that is why I never believe what they say but always watch what they do. Actions, my friend, that is how to judge a man.
I will inevitably be disappointed in the near term, in fact I already am, but I fervently believe that truth and justice "will out" over time. Obama can be the catalyst to get us there sooner.
Posted by: rudy | Jan 14, 2009 9:20:14 AM
Is the new administration going to get rid of the DADT policy? One word answer: Yes.
Do we need to translate that into some other language for some of you? Yes, the proof will be when it happens, but, since it can't happen yet (Obama hasn't been sworn in: news alert!), an unambiguous "We will get rid of DADT" sounds pretty positive to me.
This is 2009. Obama is not yet president. 2010 isn't that far away, and I imagine that Obama's first months in office will be spent grappling with the myriad messes Bush has left behind. I understand anger over Warren--I'm angry, too--but I don't really get writing off a presidency that hasn't started yet, unless you're actually hoping Obama will fail, in which case the premature bitter rantings make pathetic sense.
Posted by: Ernie | Jan 14, 2009 11:13:33 AM
I understand Rudy. The reason that I broke with the repub party the first time, to vote for Bill Clinton, was the hope of a more centrist supreme court. I do agree that those appointees are a HUGE issue for the future. I believe that the court should be about 20 years behind public opinion so as not to move quickly to re-write the constitution.
We will have our day. I just do not agree with Obama's "campaign" economic policies. Frankly, they scare me. However, I will say that given the current situation he has moved to the middle out of necessity and crisis. If he stays with Bill Clinton's economic policies I will be happy. I am just worried that he has a far more reaching and sweeping desires.
My main point is that Obama has already pandered to the LGBT community. Since I do not agree with his financial policies I have to hold onto the only thing that he can offer me: gay rights. I just hope that he will uphold those promises. Thus far, I have my concerns.
As for McCain, you are correct. Long term court appointees would have certainly been more right of center. I suppose given that information I can now say that Obama can offer me two things: gay rights and future more friendly courts. If he keeps his promise and moves us forward, I will certainly 100% admit that I am wrong and be happy to do so! Again, time is on our side and only time will tell. Take care my friend.
Posted by: RB | Jan 14, 2009 12:59:43 PM
Uhm, horseshite is a one word answer too. Don't believe it for a second. It's not a critical issue and will languish on the floor of likely both the house and senate. Regardless of what Obama promises.
Posted by: Marc C | Jan 14, 2009 6:47:30 PM
According to Chris Matthews on MSNBC "Hardball" tonight (01/14) Obama is going to issue the order eliminating "don't ask, don't tell". Will it fly? Well, Barbara Boxer says she doesn't know but hopes that it will. Bill Clinton thought he could allow gays in the military with an executive order but was told that he would be over ruled by Congress so the compromise was "DADT" ... what will Congress tell Obama? Guess we'll just have to wait and see how this shakes down. Regardless of the outcome (which I hope is positive) there has to be some action to bring this issue back to the front burner. The excuses for not allowing gays to serve openly are phoney and need to be discredited. Gays are already in the military and everybody knows it and in most cases they also know who they are - it has no impact on the ability to perform your job and that is all that should matter. I spent 4 years in the Navy and it was widely known among my fellow sailiors that I was gay - it was not an issue. I did my job, received my promotions, had great quarterly marks and was recruited for retention (but left anyway).
Posted by: chrisM | Jan 14, 2009 10:30:11 PM