Obama's promise to end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' has stipulation: 'Don't Rush'

President Obama's campaign vow to end the ban on gays in the military -- and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that forces thousands of military personnel to stay in the closet -- appears to be driven now by a strategy of "Don't Rush."

The recent coming-out by dozens of gay West Point graduates, including Arabic language specialist Lt. Daniel Choi, has put pressure on Congress and the White House to make good on promises to repeal them.

A senior military official told the Associated Press on Friday that while Obama has been clear that he wants to repeal the ban, there is no specific timeline to do it. The official, who requested anonymity because the Pentagon has not begun formal planning for the repeal, says that "Don't Rush" approach allows the military to make sure the eventual change goes well.

A report issued this month by the University of California, Santa Barbara, Palm Center research institute asserted that Obama already has the power to thwart what he sees as discrimination in discharging military personnel for their sexual orientation. Under the stop-loss provision, Obama can issue executive orders to retain any soldier deemed necessary to national emergency, it said.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/45878772.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

eom

at the Pentagon? I have read many reports of the theocratization of the armed forces lately.. Is this at the crux of the resistance?

many fine, experienced, talented,and honorable service members. This results in having to lower enlistment standards to include recruits with criminal and/or gang affilations, and those who are less educated. Idiotic!

:sarcasm:

Repealing DADT entails a lot of prep and systemic change in the way that the government and military operates. One major issue is gay marriage--if gay personnel come from states that don't recognize gay marriage, they can't extend survivor benefits and things like base housing to their partners. That effectively creates an unequal level of service, which would be unconstitutional. And for them to extend those benefits, even to legally married gay couples, requires the repeal of DOMA.

You don't need State approval to do that. You need the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

And granting survivor benefits doesn't have to be framed in terms of marriage while DOMA is on the books. There are all kinds of people who get similar benefits in the civilian world, from caretakers to children to next of kin.

You don't seem to understand that this isn't about DOMA, it's about a profitable political wedge that victimizes our people for the political profit of hack politicians.

And if somebody brought a suit against the government for providing those benefits, they could easily lose.

My point is that all of this is stuff that needs to be thought out and prepared for before going after DADT. That means that it's not going to happen tomorrow morning. Politics is the slow cutting of hard boards.

Maybe she has a power saw.

For all intents and purposes, that action violates DOMA. If the government were sued over it, they'd have a hard time winning.

winning all over the country. The national mood is shifting and shifting much faster than I for one thought it could.

And your point about a law suit is interesting in this way: I wonder if the State Department taking this action is to draw fire away from DADT. If the foreign service sets a precedent, it will be harder for people to object to the military providing the same benefits for their people.

:sarcasm:

Perhaps this is my cynicism but I sometimes wonder if the gay rights movement isn't being far too nice about things. LGBT people and their allies are trying to win their rights through lawsuits and public appeals and that's very noble, very civilised but perhaps there is something about humanity that isn't willing to recognise a right unless it's torn from the bloodied fist of the opressor. It's just a cynical little thought but perhaps we would have gotten further by having a few riots.

No sarcasm smiley here though. There's no reason it can't be done now.

Isn't that enough of a reason to honor - not condemn - them? Gays and lesbians are good Americans too.

But not much. Based on the fact that the poor guy has a lot on his plate right now, I'll give him until the end of the year to get rid of DADT and I want an attempt at full civil unions (I know but he's already come out against marriage) by the end of his first term.

The only reason I can think of that he's not signed off to suspend the firings (and you can be sure that someone's mentioned the option) is that he thinks it likely that doing so would trigger the gay rights debate that he really doesn't want to have right now.

is because if he uses one of the exec orders to do it, a lot of people will think the problem solved(including a number of politicians)

the end result being that it would be a lot harder to get it passed as a proper law(why 'fix' the same problem twice after all) meaning he would spend a lot of capital now by just signing it, then even more trying to convince congress they need to pass the law

Who besides the far right nuttery would object to allowing someone to KEEP THEIR JOB?

Obama is going to regret this in spades.

Even if what you suggest is legal--and we just got done with a major problem involving the President deciding which laws he can ignore--If the problem is temporarily dealt with, then there will never be pressure on Congress to actually deal with repealing it.

This would be a huge step forward and it's a travesty that he is dragging his feet on it.