Will Obama end Don't Ask Don't Tell?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
^ I hope that was intended as a lighthearted joke, but it sounds pretty patronizing to me.

This is kinda interesting--the Department of Defense has posted their implementation manual for DADT repeal on their website. Much of it is standard, bone-dry HR policy prose, but "Appendix D" (pp. 70-83) containing FAQs and hypothetical problem scenarios is worth a glance for anyone interested in how the military goes about this kind of thing.

I'm glad the truth got past to a Fox News watcher...

Free Your Mind does work :applaud:

It is precisely because I'm a Fox News watcher that the truth gets past to me....because they always tell me the truth.


Finally :up:

I believe in the men and women in our military and that they can and will behave in a professional manner. If someone can serve with you and potentially save your life and/or give his or her life what the hell difference does it make whether he or she is gay or straight?

If anyone is going to abuse a gay soldier then THEY don't deserve to be in our military. After all when you serve you are taking an oath to protect all US citizens, not just straight ones.
Louis CK has this comedy bit about how straight men have this very constant, real fear of being anally raped at all times.

Finally :up:

I believe in the men and women in our military and that they can and will behave in a professional manner. If someone can serve with you and potentially save your life and/or give his or her life what the hell difference does it make whether he or she is gay or straight?

If anyone is going to abuse a gay soldier then THEY don't deserve to be in our military. After all when you serve you are taking an oath to protect all US citizens, not just straight ones.

Well said. Soldiers, airmen, sailors, coast guard, & marines; they are all professionals. DADT was actually a good thing for 1993, all things considered. I was in the army at the time and it was a pretty big deal. But we've come a long way since then. We have the internet, phones that can play videos, cars that drive themselves, Tv's that can hang on your wall and also project in 3-D. Oh yeah, we've also got a black president.

I guess my point is that 1993 was, in some ways, a long time ago. An entire generation of people have grown up with a new outlook on life. Thank goodness people are evolving and putting the boogeyman behind them. Without DADT in 1993 we'd never have the chance to repeal it in 2010.
methinks that his thinking will have totally evolved sometime after January of 2013 ...

Well, no doubt I think a pivotal moment. And I know that so many people who voted for you, LGBT folks who voted for you, did so because they believe that you were a fierce supporter of equality. Given what you’ve just said, Mr. President, do you think it’s time that gays and lesbians should be entitled to full marriage rights?

Well, I spoke about this recently with some bloggers who were here ...

Mr. Joe Sudbay.

Yes, and Joe asked me the same question. And since I've been making a lot of news over the last several weeks, I’m not going to make more news today. The sentiment I expressed then is still where I am — which is, like a lot of people, I’m wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this. I have always firmly believed in having a robust civil union that provides the rights and benefits under the law that marriage does. I’ve wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples.

And squaring that circle is something that I have not done yet, but I’m continually asking myself this question, and I do think that — I will make this observation, that I notice there is a big generational difference. When you talk to people who are in their 20s, they don’t understand what the holdup is on this, regardless of their own sexual orientation. And obviously when you talk to older folks, then there’s greater resistance.

And so this is an issue that I’m still wrestling with, others are still wrestling with. What I know is that at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples.

Can you imagine a time when you would get there? I mean, you say “evolving,” and that sort of assumes that you get somewhere. Can you imagine a time of getting there?

I'm going to stick with my answer. [Laughter]


So I want to continue to look for ways administratively, even if we’re not able to get something through the House of Representatives or the Senate, that advances the causes of equality.

With respect to the courts and heightened scrutiny, I think that if you look at where Justice [Anthony] Kennedy is moving, the kind of rational review that he applied in the Texas case was one that feels right to me and says that, even if he was calling it “rational review,” is one that recognizes that certain groups may be vulnerable to stereotypes, certain groups may be subject to discrimination, and that the court’s job historically is to pay attention to that.

And so I’m not going to engage in — I’m not going to put my constitutional lawyer hat on now, partly because I’m president and I’ve got to be careful about my role in the three branches of government here. But what I will say is that I think that the courts historically have played a critical role in making sure that all Americans are protected under the law. And there are certain groups that are in need of that protection; the court needs to make sure it’s there for them.


Right. Will you use your bully pulpit to lobby for things like that?

Yes, well ...

Because we didn't hear from you much on ENDA. We didn't hear from you much on DOMA.

Well, that's because we were focusing on “don’t ask, don’t tell.”


And I’ve got a few other things on my plate.

I’ve heard of some of those.

Yes, exactly. So Congress is a complicated place with 535 people that you have to deal with in order to get anything done. And my belief was when I first came in, and it continues to be, that by getting “don’t ask, don’t tell” done, we sent a clear message about the direction, the trajectory of this country in favor of equality for LGBT persons. The next step I think would be legislatively to look at issues like DOMA and ENDA. And I’m going to continue to ...

But I think people ...

... strongly support them.

I think people wonder what can happen since legislatively that’s probably not going to happen.

I understand, Kerry. But, Kerry, I’m trying to answer your question, and you keep on coming back at me.

OK, sorry.

So what I’m saying is that we’re probably not going — realistically, we’re probably not going to get those done in the next two years unless we see a substantial shift in attitudes within the Republican caucus.

As I said, though, that outside of legislative circles, attitudes are changing rapidly. They're changing in our culture. They’re changing in our workplaces. One of the most important things I can do as president is to continually speak out about why it’s important to treat everyone as our brothers and sisters, as fellow Americans, as citizens.

And looking for constant opportunities to do that I think is going to be critically important because that helps set the tone and changes the ground beneath the feet of legislators so that they start feeling like, gosh, maybe we are behind the times here and we need to start moving forward. And so you chip away at these attitudes. It also continues to require effective advocacy from groups on the outside.

So I guess my general answer to your question is when it comes to legislation, it took us two years to get “don’t ask, don’t tell” done. I know that there are a whole bunch of folks who thought we could have gotten it done in two months. There were people who thought with a stroke of a pen it could get done. That, in fact, was not the case. But it got done.

And I’m confident that these other issues will get done. But what they require is a systematic strategy and constant pressure and a continuing change in attitudes. And as I said, there are things that we can continue to do administratively that I think will send a message that the federal government, as an employer, is going to constantly look for opportunities to make sure that we’re eliminating discrimination.

What about not defending DOMA?

As I said before, I have a whole bunch of really smart lawyers who are looking at a whole range of options. My preference wherever possible is to get things done legislatively because I think it — it gains a legitimacy, even among people who don’t like the change, that is valuable.

So with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I have such great confidence in the effective implementation of this law because it was repealed. We would have gotten to the same place if the court order had made it happen, but I think it would have engendered resistance. So I’m always looking for a way to get it done, if possible, through our elected representatives. That may not be possible in DOMA’s case. That's something that I think we have to strategize on over the next several months.

Obama: "Prepared to Implement" | News Features | The Advocate

the whole interview is worth a read. i love reading Obama in long form.
I started thinking about that very issue after the official repeal of DADT, too, Irvine. I have absolutely no problem believing gay couples will be allowed to marry/adopt nationwide in the next few years. It sounds to me, from that interview, like he's figuring out how to slowly work on making that stuff legal in ways that will make it much harder for the opposition to get a chance to fight back and try and stop it, or overturn it. I'd love for him to come right out and just declare that stuff legal tomorrow, but it doesn't work that way, and he knows that. He's sneakier than people give him credit for, I really do believe that.

And Barney Frank kicks ass :up:.

I started thinking about that very issue after the official repeal of DADT, too, Irvine. I have absolutely no problem believing gay couples will be allowed to marry/adopt nationwide in the next few years.

I think the chance of this happening in the next few years is zero, to be honest.

There isn't the public support for it, nationally, there isn't political support, and the judiciary has been stacked against this and other progressive issues.

There will be many more countries in this world before it happens in the US.
just for clarification, i believe gays can adopt in all states, even now Florida.

adopting from other countries -- Russia, Vietnam, Guatemala -- is an issue.

within the next few years we'll see marriage equality in CA, NY, RI, NJ and MD, possibly.
(CNN) – Normally, it’s what Sarah Palin tweets that makes news. This time it’s what she has re-tweeted.

The former Alaska governor Monday relayed a comment from gay conservative pundit Tammy Bruce, who was expressing her criticism over continued Republican opposition to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell military policy that won congressional repeal late last month.

Now the political world is wondering just what Palin meant to express.

"But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already–the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed,” Bruce’s original tweet read that was subsequently relayed by Palin.

Bruce was thrilled with Palin’s re-tweet, saying it constitutes a clear signal the former Republican vice presidential nominee is a friend of the gay community.

“I think @SarahPalinUSA RT my tweet is her first comment on DADT, treatment of gays & attempts to marginalize us–thank you Governor,” Bruce replied.

The Republican pro-gay rights group GOProud, of which Bruce holds a leadership role, also highlighted Palin's “Gay Friendly” tweet Tuesday in an e-mail to reporters.

Palin hasn't said anything more on the issue so it remains unclear exactly what she meant to convey, but the re-tweet is a rare comment from Palin when it comes to any issue involving gay rights – a likely hot-button issue in upcoming Republican primary presidential campaign given the recent repeal of the longrunning military policy that forbade gay service members to serve openly.

It could also be a sign the former Alaska governor's stance on social issues beyond that of abortion is less understood by Republicans and Democrats alike than was previously believed.
Dont Ask, Don't Tell: Navy to Discharge Sailor for Falling Asleep in Bed With Another Man - ABC News

A Navy petty officer facing discharge for falling asleep in bed with another male sailor last month says his ouster is motivated by homophobia, not a legitimate crime, a claim that has some gay rights advocates worried about life after "don't ask don't tell."

Stephen Jones, 21, a student at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Charleston, S.C., says he and friend Brian McGee inadvertently fell asleep together while watching the "Vampire Diaries" on a computer in his quarters Feb. 6.

Jones was wearing pajama pants and a white t-shirt, laying on top of the covers; McGee was in boxer shorts under the blanket on Jones' twin bed, according to both men's account of the situation.

When Jones' roommate, Tyler Berube, walked in shortly after midnight, the sleepy sailors woke up, got dressed and went back to their rooms.

Several days later, however, Jones and McGee were cited with dereliction of duty for "willfully failing to exhibit professional conduct in his room," according to the Navy report specifying the charges.

McGee accepted the charge and received docked pay. But when Jones refused to accept a penalty, instead hoping for a court martial to prove his innocence, he was ordered separated from the Navy for good.

While there was no evidence of homosexual conduct presented in the statements given by the three men to military investigators, Jones and his civilian attorney Gary Meyers believe homophobic suspicions were motivation for the charge.

"The roommate is concerned about what he sees, even though he sees nothing," Meyers said. "And his statement doesn't indicate he saw anything. Two men woke up and they left the room. It's a bizarre overreaction."

Meyers contends that because the command had too little evidence to start an investigation under "don't ask, don't tell," which is still technically military policy, it used a subterfuge to achieve the same result.

"I asked several times about what was unprofessional about what I did, and every time they said it's just unprofessional. Period," said Jones, who is appealing the decision.

"Guys are always playing video games, watching movies, in other people's quarters," Jones said. "Brian and I hung out on a regular basis. Curfew was 2 a.m. We woke up between 12 and 12:30, and were back in our rooms before 1. I have never been in trouble ever in all of my life."

A copy of the Navy's investigative report confirms that Berube discovered the two men asleep in bed, well before the 2 a.m. curfew Feb. 6, but does not detail how Jones or McGee may have exhibited unprofessional behavior.

A spokesman for the Naval Nuclear Training Command did not respond to ABC News' requests for comment but told the Washington Post, which first reported on the case, that "the determination was that two sailors sharing the same rack was unprofessional."

Attorney Meyers said, "If this is a problem, every kid who was ever in a fraternity or sorority or in a dorm room, wearing boxers and sitting on the bed, is going to have to look at their conduct again."

Calls to Capt. Thomas Bailey, the commanding officer, were not returned.

Case Highlights Potential for Discrimination

Gay rights advocates say it's premature to know whether the case is an isolated incident involving potential homophobic bias or illustrative of a broader trend.

But some of them are concerned about what could be coming as the military moves ahead with implementing a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

"The Navy has already found a way to kick out suspected gays, even without using the DADT policy," John Aravosis wrote of the case on AmericaBlog.

"And the sailors in question have no choice but to hire civilian lawyers to defend them because sexual orientation isn't included in the Pentagon's non-discrimination policies, and won't be even if DADT is fully repealed this year."

Aravosis wants President Obama to sign an executive order adding the military to the existing federal policy that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"We have to be on guard that some commanders don't come up with creative ways to go against the repeal," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "No commander should look for a phony charge against a gay or suspected gay sailor in a post-repeal world. The issue that should always be on the table is conduct, not sexual orientation."

As for Jones, who declined to comment on whether he is gay, the case clearly demonstrates an abuse of power, regardless of his perceived sexual orientation.

"Anybody could be separated on these terms," he said. "It's very vague. I have done nothing wrong."
It's viewer restricted because it's a liquor ad, I presume. You can watch the ad on this link. Of course you could have a male soldier come home and kiss his gf or wife-no man kissing though.

Budweiser 'Coming Home' Video: Gay Military Theme? (VIDEO)

Budweiser released a new military-themed ad on Tuesday, and some are speculating that it is aimed at the gay community.

The ad, which is viewer-restricted on YouTube, shows a soldier calling a man and saying, "it's me. I'm coming home." It then shows a split screen, with the soldier getting ready to go home and the man preparing a party for him. At the end of the ad, the man is at the front of a group of people welcoming the soldier home, and the two hug.

All of this got the site After Elton wondering if Budweiser had essentially crafted the first-ever post-Don't Ask Don't Tell gay military ad. "Is the commercial intentionally gay or not?" the site mused. "Well, only Budweiser knows for sure, but if you substituted a woman for PB, it would read pretty much exactly like a heterosexual relationship."
So when will they have an ad with a female soldier coming home to a party thrown by her male partner?

Anyway, it's some kind of progress, I guess.
I've seen the commercial on TV maybe twice. I didn't really get that impression (I assumed it was his brother, though maybe I wasn't paying enough attention). I guess people can interpret it any way they want.
goodbye forever, DADT. :wave:

you were a stupid and senseless policy.

thank you President Obama, and thank you Joe Lieberman.
goodbye forever, DADT. :wave:

you were a stupid and senseless policy.

thank you President Obama, and thank you Joe Lieberman.

you really miss the point

in 1992 DTDA was a huge risk for Bill Clinton.
He paid a huge price for initiating it.

Without DADT there would not have been a case to be made that gays are capable of serving.
Top Bottom