Repeal of DADT, Why Are We Waiting?
A new poll by Gallup shows that 69% of Americans favor repeal of the military Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Repeal of the policy is even favored by 58% of people who call themselves conservative and 60% of people who attend church weekly.
I think it’s difficult to get 70% of Americans to agree on any issue, so why are we delaying acting on DADT repeal? Why is the Obama administration allowing Arabic linguist Lt. Dan Choi to be dismissed under the policy? I know the Obama administration is cautious and extremely focused on healthcare reform and thinks that a fight on DADT would be a distraction. In some ways the administration is probably right, Congressional Republicans aren’t really focused on what the American public wants but on picking fights with the administration. Repealing DADT is the right thing to do and the sooner it’s done, the better as far as I’m concerned.
BTW, the new nominee for Secretary of the Army, Republican Congressman John McHugh supports the repeal of DADT:
But the former ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, who voted in favor of the policy in 1993, said Thursday that a lot of things have changed since then, including his views.
“I have no interest as either a Member of Congress or as … secretary of the Army to exclude by some categorization a group of people otherwise qualified to serve,” McHugh told Roll Call.
He noted that the Armed Services Committee has not considered the policy “in any formal way” since 1993. In the meantime, “certainly, the recruiting-age population’s views have changed on that whole matter,” he said.
Tags: DADT, Gay Rights, military
We’re waiting for the military to say it is a good idea.
Waiting for something like… this?
Thanks for the link, pandora. Obviously a majority of the country (which includes people in the military) are ready for DADT to go.
The gays really aren’t that important to this administration I guess.
Repealing DADT would bring a whole new meaning to The Army of Liberty.
“I have no interest as either a Member of Congress or as … secretary of the Army to exclude by some categorization a group of people otherwise qualified to serve,” McHugh told Roll Call.
Translated — “we need soldiers even if they’re gay.”
Tom, then by all means, go join up. Don’t think we’ve asked the military if ANY of this mess in IRAQ was a good idea…Oh yes, we did….And they thought it was a pretty crappy idea too 🙂
Once again you confuse a fringe social issue with the need to maintain a string and ready military. The request to repeal DADT as you call it exists only to validate homosexuality.
I am always amazed how less than 2% of the population can drive attempt to change so many laws without any proof the change will improve the situation.
Mike Protack
I guess the almost 10% unemployment rate is a good reason to talk about DADT.
Obama’s FUBAR economy.
For real facts:
http://delawarerepublican.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/dont-ask-dont-tell/
Keep DADT
Mike Protack
Don’t ask, don’t tell was long the rule and it did work. There should be no sexual witch hunts and the private acts of consenting adults is strictly their business.
Perhaps repeal of DADT would allow the ‘in your face crowd’ to be able to be really annoying. The same goes for blatant public displays of affection from straight couple. Keep it private and no one really cares.
Art – DADT is not about sex. DADT is about fear, frightened men who question their sexuality, men who can’t fathom to think that a gay man can be as or more masculuine than themselves. Let’s cut the crap about equating homosexuality with sex. DADT equals sick heterosexual thinking.
Who the heck is Mike Protack anyway?
Why should GLBT people hide their sexuality? It’s not expected of straight people. Straight people don’t have to come out as straight, it’s just assumed. Straight people don’t have to worry about talking about their husband or wife of be seen on a date in public.
I saw DADT used once by a guy who went home on leave, fell in love with his ex girlfriend, and get discharged to go back home.
We called it “gay for a day.”
He came back all head over heels in love, purposely flirt with someone with too many stripes, and then get booted out on DADT so he can go home to his hetero love.
“Perhaps repeal of DADT would allow the ‘in your face crowd’ to be able to be really annoying”
And so what’s your excuse Art? Is there something we could repeal to make you less annoying? 🙂
“The request to repeal DADT as you call it exists only to validate homosexuality.”
-Mike Protack
Think about that for a minute.
purposely flirt with someone with too many stripes
I can imagine that plan going horribly wrong.
And this bit:
I am always amazed how less than 2% of the population can drive attempt to change so many laws without any proof the change will improve the situation.
Is just plain un-American. We have a Constitution that affirms rights for all. Periodically we have to fight over whether certain Americans get more rights than others. But this is a signature obit of modern conservatism, right? The Constitution means everything until you get to the inconvenient bits.
” The Constitution means everything until you get to the inconvenient bits.”
2nd Amendment?
h.,
I think I see a dead horse you can go beat on.
neiiiigh!!!!
Why, it’s the left’s ” I hate queers ” argument.
Well no — that would be you, h., making stuff up again.
Unless, of course, you are actually claiming that you hate queers. Are you?
No. Have a few of them in the family. I like taking them shopping, good fashion sense.
Really, I work with “queers” on a daily basis in my line of work. Probably some of the most down to earth people I’ve ever met.
#21 — It seems you on the left have no qualms about taking away or limiting a constitutional right when it comes to Amendment #2. That’s all.
The point being made is that the folks who claim to be constitutional absolutists are the first to not be so absolute when it comes to gay people.
Point taken.
Breaking news:
The Supreme Court on Monday (6/8) declined to hear the appeal in James Pietrangelo v. Gates. Pietrangelo filed the appeal and against the wishes of his fellow plaintiffs in the original case, Cook v. Gates. The 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled last year that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was “an exercise of Congressional judgment in the area of military affairs” and warranted enormous deference from the judicial branch.
President Obama’s Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging it not to hear Pietrangelo’s appeal. But Kagan’s brief said the 1st Circuit “properly upheld” the statute.
Which now means that the ball is in Congress’ hands, which is where Obama wants the change to come from.
Personally, I think that Obama ought to order a suspension on the personnel actions currently pending as a result of this while waiting for Congress to do its thing.
My eyes are burning for going to MP’s blog, but I did it, in the attempt to see his argument. Here is a real money-quote from his post. I link to it (as he did above), but be aware, it is just a single paragraph from a larger post:
In that sentence he basically admits he is homophobic when he acknowledges and accepts the charge his statement will elicit. We’ll just let that last sentence stand on its own. This makes me wonder what conservative posterboy Barry Goldwater would think? The very same Barry Goldwater who said, “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” A very direct reference into his support for homosexuals being a part of the military.
I’m sorry you had to put up with that Smitty. The argument against letting gays serve openly boils down to not liking gay people. The arguments they use about “unit cohesion” were the same ones trotted out about not having integrated troops and not letting women serve.
Is it just me, or does the “unit cohesion” argument come down to – some people are prejudiced, so we must not expose them to the things they’re prejudiced to.