White House backs compromise on gays in military

[David Zephyr]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – A proposal to step up the repeal of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military has won the White House's backing after administration officials met with gay rights activists.

The White House budget director on Monday evening sent a letter backing a proposal that would remove the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" law even as the Pentagon continues a review of the system.
Implementation of policy for gays serving openly would still require the approval of President Barack Obama and the administration's military officials. How long implementation might take is not known.

"We want to be clear: This review is focused on 'how' the military should implement repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' not 'if' it should," said Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat and Iraq war veteran who is leading the House effort of repeal.

Activists met at the White House through the day with administration officials who are trying to broker a compromise. Policy aides to Democratic leaders met Monday morning to discuss the potential deal and top Democratic lawmakers planned to meet Monday evening on Capitol Hill.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_gays_military

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[bluestateguy]

2. I'm game for it IF there is a timetable on this "study" the Penagon wants to do

Fine, we'll play along with their little "study"---to a degree, if it gets more votes for overturning DADT, but we cannot allow them to just push paper and stall, as they wait around for their old bosses to come back into power in 2013 or 2017.

[Still Sensible]

3. I agree... but I also agree with Joe Sestek

(an unqualified supporter of immediately repealing DADT) who just said on CNN that he could support the compromise provided that enforcement of DADT is "abated" in the interim.

I believe CNN reported that Gates "timetable" is by December.

Damn I hope they can get the votes.

[Unvanguard]

7. There is a timetable, it's due by December. n/t

[No Elephants]

37. Right after mid-term elections.

[Unvanguard]

47. Correct. And that would be a disaster, but for the fact that after this passes

Congress doesn't have to do a thing.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. President Obama's surrogates assure you that he's with you...

...just as much as he's with everyone else, including those who oppose you, and he'll be happy to step to the forefront and humbly accept the praise for his courageous leadership as soon as its safe.

You may continue in your awe. That is all.

[Iowa]

10. Ha! So true. You nailed it.

[David Zephyr]

49. No awe.

This moves the ball forward. Congress will begin overturning the law a nod from the White House as the Pentagon follows the President's earlier directive.

To those GLBT serving in the military right now, this move was welcomed as it pushes it along faster.

[PurityOfEssence]

51. That was meant generally, not personally

It was a riff on military-speak, not a dig at you personally.

You seem to "get it" with this President, and are willing to take the incrementalism as it comes, and that's what all sensible people should do. My endless beef is with the sideways, slippery, deft evasion that somehow still gets characterized as courage. I should probably be more happy that many things are moving in the right direction, but the whole approach of fawningly looking for approval from those who won't be appeased even by full capitulation continues to be stuck in my craw. Promising new politics when practicing the oldest of the old also gets tiring, and I'm sure I'm not alone with this.

If, on the day when the mealy-mouthed policy of DADT is finally sent to its rightful place in the dustbin of history, I hope he's got the restraint and decorum to not take too much credit and grandstand too much. Somehow, I think that this will be the case, though, since it'll still sadly be a contentious issue and he still needs to inexplicably curry favor with the trogs.

The sad thing is that we're at a perilous crossroads on many issues right now: Global Warming, Foreign Intervention and Financial Recklessness beg for dominating and even domineering leadership, not endless Arthur Murrayish campaigning.

Whatever. If it works, it works, and that's the important thing.

Bad mood.

[David Zephyr]

52. I am he, as you are he, as you are me...

I've come to accept incrementalism now because the alternative is truly frightening. The GOP is no longer corporate country clubbers who manipulate racists and religious fanatics. The latter now controls the that party and the corporate country clubbers will deal with either party on piecmeal to get what they want...and always get.

My view of Obama is reduced to this now: he's all that's between us and the flood.

[Rozlee]

5. I'm so damn sick of this.

This has been going on since I was on active duty in the 80s on up. Nothing's ever going to change. Even among those who feel benign toward gays, the military's hard line has gotten them so riled up that they can't see straight--literally. I remember a big argument I had once during the first Gulf War with a few Neanderthals who told me that gays didn't belong in the military and that they'd get out in a heartbeat the moment they were allowed in. I smugly pointed out the second and third to the last GP medium tents and they shut up in confusion. What could they say? The second to the last tent was the "lesbian" tent. Actually, it had 8 females, 4 of whom were lesbians. The other one had 8 males, 6 of whom were gay. They were all well liked. That's the way it's always been. The basic military never even notice their unit mates are gay and don't care if they are. But, the higher ups frame the whole argument so that it's kneejerk and practically Pavlovian. Gay = watching you lustfully when you're taking your shower.

[ruggerson]

6. This tells the story in a bit more depth:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Dont_Ask_repeal_now_on_track_with_quiet_administration_role.html

Congress appears poised to repeal the ban on gays in the military, with the quiet support of the White House and without opposition from the Pentagon, according to statements out from gay rights groups this evening.

The repeal is a careful dance: The Pentagon has remained publicly neutral in the process, while the Administration weighed in in a low-key, wonky, two-paragraph letter to Congress that makes no reference to the moral case for repeal. It is signed not by President Obama but by Budget Director Peter Orszag.

The effect of the public relations moves is to put the credit or blame for repeal on Congress and a group led by Senators Carl Levin and Joe Lieberman and Rep. Patrick Murphy. But the practical effect is the same: A military that, some time next year, will likely begin to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.

Says the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund's Aubrey Sarvis:

"The White House announcement is a dramatic breakthrough in dismantling ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The path forward crafted by the President, Department of Defense officials, and repeal leaders on Capitol Hill respects the ongoing work by the Pentagon on how to implement open service and allows for a vote this week. President Obama’s support and Secretary Gates’ buy-in should insure a winning vote, but we are not there yet. The votes still need to be worked and counted."

The proposal, Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese said in a statement, is a technical compromise, though it likely achieves most of gay rights advocates' goals:

"The proposal would allow Congress to vote to repeal the current DADT law now with implementation to follow upon completion of the Pentagon Working Group study due December 1, 2010. The President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would need to certify that implementation policies and regulations are prepared and that they are consistent with standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention. The plan therefore addresses concerns expressed by the Pentagon that the implementation study process be respected."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appears to be maintaining a public posture of distance from the changes.

"Given that Congress intends to address this issue this week, we are trying to gain a better understanding of the legislative proposals they will be considering," his spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said earlier today.

[David Zephyr]

50. Thanks for the article, ruggerson which expands on why this is a positive move.

This one-ups Obama's directive to the Pentagon to move forward by putting Congressional pressure as well. It's a positive move.

[Unvanguard]

8. Good. Given Gates' letter, this is probably the best that can be done at this point.

Though if the White House had taken a stronger stance from the outset, instead of effectively dropping the ball for months, the parameters leading to this "compromise" might be different.

[No Elephants]

38. I'm sure the WH had nothing to do with the wording of Gates' letter.

Or with Gates' appointmentment. And I'm also sure Barney Frank's saying a year ago that Congress would address DADT after mid-terms was a wild guess. Nothing is simply going as plsnned all along by Obama and the Democratic Congress to have the GLBT communiy stay pretty much in the Democrati fold for mid-terms, yet without doing anything definitive before mid-terms.

Lucky guess, Barney.

Random chance, I tell ya. I swear it.

[Unvanguard]

48. I'm not sure what you're arguing.

I don't think the White House was personally behind Gates' letter; prior to it, they were essentially remaining silent about the prospect of an early repeal or moratorium. Certainly they could have stopped it but didn't; certainly they could have been more encouraging from the beginning. That's what I said.

As for Barney Frank's suggestion that Congress would address DADT after the midterms, I don't recall him saying that; it's possible he did, but regardless it seems unlikely at this point, with the likely Republican gains. If this passes, DADT won't be addressed by Congress after the midterms at all, and repealing it via the defense appropriations bill this summer (i.e. what they're doing, with accommodation for the review) has been in the works for a long time. It hit a stumbling block with the refusal of the administration to get behind the effort, but apparently between the willingness of Congressional Democrats to get the effort moving anyway and the lobbying efforts of gay rights organizations (I didn't expect GetEQUAL's protests to have any effect, but who knows?), that stumbling block is now gone.

If this had somehow been the plan all along, we would have seen this compromise agreed to months ago, which would have improved Obama's standing among the gay community while still ending up with implementation happening after the midterms. In any case, I have no particular objection to the Obama Administration having its cake and eating it too, if they can pull it off. I have a stronger objection to leaving DADT in place until December, for likely minimal political gain, but if this passes the core of getting rid of it will have been achieved, and that is important.

[brooklynite]

9. Paging Dr. Rand Paul...

After all, he's a pure Libertarian, right? No Social Conservative there! He should be foursquare behind the right of every American to serve in the military, shouldn't he?

[elleng]

11. Obama Backs Proposal to Lift Ban on Gays In Military.

Source: nyt

The White House on Monday backed a proposal that would put the United States on a path toward repeal of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

The proposal, which was the subject of talks involving the White House, Pentagon, Congress and gay rights groups, would allow Congress to repeal the Clinton-era policy called "don't ask, don't tell," but it would remain in place until the Pentagon finishes a study of the issue in December.

The talks were held as the House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on a Defense Department spending bill that is likely to include an amendment to repeal the policy, with conditions.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/05/24/us/politics/politics-us-obama-gays-military.html

[Scurrilous]

12. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Captain Hilts]

13. A 'proposal' to put us on a 'path' to getting rid of DADT. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Guess we're just gonna meander our way to the goal of equality.

[phleshdef]

17. It took 5 years to desegregate the military.

[No Elephants]

39. Not really. And different, even if true. Careers were not ended, citing skin color.

Moreover, it did not take five years to issue the order, let alone almost an entire generation.

Remember, Clinton was supposed to end discrimination against gays. DADT was HIS halfway measure. Now, here's another half-way measure. And, we still don'y\t know when and exactly how the institutionalized discrimination will finally end.

Also, Truman did not run on a promise of racial integration of the military.

Finally, Truman's announced his decision in 1948, when many then Democratic states had Jim Crow laws, where people could not ride in the same train car, use the same rest rooms or register to vote. This 2010.

I am in no way minimizing racial segregation. All forms of discrimination based on who you are are heinous, each in its own ways. I am just saying the two situations, while comparable in some ways, are very different in others.

BTW, the military is not de-segregated, or we would not be having this discussion at all.

As to the timeline of racial integration:

"1945

September 1945: Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson appoints a board of three general officers to investigate the Army's policy with respect to African-Americans and to prepare a new policy that would provide for the efficient use of African-Americans in the Army. This board is called the Gillem Board, after its chairman, General Alvan C. Gillem, Jr.

<snip>

February 2, 1948: President Truman announces in a special message to Congress on civil rights issues that he has "instructed the Secretary of Defense to take steps to have the remaining instances of discrimination in the armed services eliminated as rapidly as possible.

<snip>


July 26, 1948: President Truman signs Executive Order 9981, which states, "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin." The order also establishes the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services.


For the full timeline of racial integration of the military, see http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

[pezDispenser]

27. its a big ship

it doesn't turn on a dime. Much like healthcare, this isn't perfect, but a step towards the goal.

[No Elephants]

40. Maybe someone should have started turning the ship's wheel sooner

and A LOT harder? Please see also Reply 39.

The U.S seems to be the only country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service that will accept the service (and lims, health, sanity and lives) of members of the GLBT community, AS LONG AS THEY FAKE AND LIE --WHILE ALSO REQUIRING ALL MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY TO HAVE AND MAINTAIN INTEGRITY.


Talk about messed up!

"Countries that disallow homosexuals from serving in the military
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)

Cuba
China
Egypt
Greece<1>
Iran
Jamaica
North Korea
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Singapore
South Korea<2>
Syria
Turkey<3>
Venezuela
Yemen"

Ibid.

[msongs]

15. obama could stop investigations current and new TODAY if he wanted to nt

[AlbertCat]

25. A 'proposal' to put us on a 'path' to getting rid of DADT.

After a study (what are they studying? It's not like the gays are not already there!) due in 7 months!

Isn't that special????

[No Elephants]

41. I guess they'll study if requiring troops to fake, lie and live in fear is essential to national

security?

[salguine]

16. I'll bet there's a hundred-billion dollar taxpayers' money giveaway to Wall Street in it somewhere.

[t0dd]

18. The President has worked against gay rights behind the scenes

So we are supposed to applaud him reluctantly coming around to striking a phony compromise on DADT? This discriminatory policy won't be repealed until the "study" is completed and Robert Gates decides it can be implemented "without harm". When will that be? :shrug:

The only thing this will be used for is to avoid moving on ENDA. After all, us gays better be grateful we got this much.. :sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

42. I'm so sorry for what you have to put up with, both from our government and from non-governmental

sources. I wish I could change it.

[Zenlitened]

19. I hope something concrete comes of this...

... including an immediate suspension of DADT discharges.

And, I have to confess, this all seems rather... understated... at the moment. Indirect, abashed, a little bit ashamed of advocating for Those People. (Which is not uncommon among Democrats, I've come to understand.)

But maybe I'm just reacting to the reporting at this stage, and the implementation will be more robust.

I truly hope so.

I hope a direct, unapologetic, out-and-proud sort of statement is being planned for the day the votes are cast.

Words matter, and for the American people to hear in no uncertain terms that gay and lesbian Americans have the will, the skills, the honor, the courage... not to mention the RIGHT to serve our nation... well, that would be powerful indeed.

[izquierdista]

20. What spectacular LEADERSHIP!

Hang on Barack, I'm trying to catch up with ya!

[Swagman]

21. let's not forget all the gays and lesbians who gave their lives in WW1 & WW2

and every other war. It's bizarre anyone should care about someone's sexuality in a life and death situation. Why no "don't ask don't tell " for doctors and nurses, firemen and so on ?:shrug:

[donco6]

22. This makes no sense to me.

What did we agree to exactly? That we would wait even longer, in exchange for a Congressional vote on DADT? How could any of the people in that meeting give that agreement? It's a chip they don't have. And what did they give in return? We already had a delay for the study - that was a done deal already. I don't get it.

[No Elephants]

43. It's part of the keep incumbents in office as long as they wish program. Reply #38.

[zenprole]

23. Prince's Invisible Dog Food

Machiavelli said "Good news a little at a time, the bad news all at once." Using this principle, Obama could milk a DADT repeal for a few more years and still make people politically salivate.

Q: At what point in the bell-ringing did Pavlov's dogs tear him a new one?

[QC]

24. Will they suspend the discharges while the generals dick around? n/t

[xynthee]

26. Wow, this is a huge victory!!

:sarcasm:

A "proposal" to put us on a "path" toward repeal of DADT! :woohoo:

We'll forever remember where we were when we heard this monumental, life-altering news!! You know, just like we remember where we were and what we were doing when 9/11 happened (this is going to be JUST AS SIGNIFICANT).

I always doubted his commitment to equal rights, but this bold backing of a PROPOSAL to put us on a PATH toward repealing DADT has set me straight! Lawdy, was I ever WRONG about him!

[jaysunb]

28. Deal could end 'don't ask, don't tell'

Source: Loa Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington
President Obama reached a deal with key Democrats on Monday that could repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing gays and lesbians in the military — assuming Congress signs on.

The proposal would let lawmakers vote now to repeal the law and allow people who are openly gay to serve, once the president and top military leaders certify that the repeal wouldn't threaten the military's "readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention," according to documents the sponsors sent to the administration.


» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.

The White House replied that the proposal "meets the concerns" raised by the Pentagon and that the Obama administration supported it.

Voting before the November election — in which Democrats are expected to lose seats — gives the proposal its best chance at passage.

The House could take up the proposal, as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, as early as Thursday. But the House's third-ranking Republican said his party would oppose it.

"The American people don't want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda," Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) told the Associated Press.

Democrats hold a commanding lead in the House and probably could pass the proposal without Republican support, unless conservative Democrats defected.

In the Senate, which expects to act in June, 60 votes are required to cut off debate. Republicans hold 41 seats and could filibuster if they chose.



Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dont-ask-20100525,0,3150384.story

[aquart]

29. And then what?

[defendandprotect]

30. Wish it was only this issue, but obviously fanatics are running miliary . . . duh!!

[CLANG]

31. The pukes will filibuster in the senate for sure.

God, guns and gays is all they have.

[No Elephants]

44. Um...choice?

According to them, gays and choice both could be classified under "God."

[AlbertCat]

32. "The American people don't want

"The American people don't want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda,"

What, like....PEACE?

Since when did an R from Ind. speak for The American People????

[No Elephants]

36. Repeal of DADT ends deception. To end war, we must look elsewhere.

[happygoluckytoyou]

33. what next... don't suck don't fuck legislation for the church... too liberal?

[Jubal-Waters]

34. read the constitution

Article 4 section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Ummm doesn't that mean that rights recognized by a number of states must be recognized by the federal government?

[No Elephants]

45. The Equal Rights Clause of the 14th Amendment pertains.

Though Fat Tony and his ideological clones will probably disagree with me--which is why I would hate to see this get to the SCOTUS before one of them retires or "passes on to his reward."

[Jubal-Waters]

35. read the constitution

Article 4 section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Ummm doesn't that mean that rights recognized by a number of states must be recognized by the federal government?

[NJmaverick]

46. K & R!