DADT Deal: The Beginning of the End

Comments

1
I'll never fully grasp this issue. Why would a gay person want to be murdered for a corporate oligarchy that loathes and despises them? Why?
2
This is a key step in Barack Hussein Obama's backdoor plan to weaken and undermine America, which has been his dream since his father, Frank Marshall Davis, read Communist poetry to him when he was a child.

The fact is that the only way socialism can take root in America is for the next generations to convert to homosexuality, and allowing these deviant miscreants to serve openly in our military is the first step in the long march to making perfectly straight children convert to homosexuality. This will undermine families, paving the way for the government to step in and control each and every aspect of our lives.

It may seem noble and beautiful, and a victory in the cause for civil rights, but in reality, it is a brilliantly devious advance for totalitarianism.

Emboldened by this victory, I predict the Kenyan will suspend or even cancel the elections in November so he can consolidate his power. I suspect the reason he's been dragging his feet on the oil spill is to create a crisis on the Gulf Coast so that he can declare martial law - with open homosexuals enforcing it.

Civil War cannot be far now.
3
Dan, why does it have to be one group(s) did everything or did nothing to make this happen. You don't think the pressure and influence applied by other groups working with elected officials like Levin and Murphy put pressure on POTUS, in addition to the work of GetEqual, etc...

An inside and an outside game is what moves legislation and if you weren't so blinded or self righteous you would recognize it. Your knee jerk kicks of people working differently from you and your methods (btw what are your methods) within the community does not help the cause.

Civil disobedience should continue to happen and those who want to work within the system should continue with their activities. It does not have to be either or.
4
I keep forgetting you're a war supporter, Dan.

Praise Lt. Dan Christ.
5
The "choices" on this Fox poll almost make it sound like a Stranger poll:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/2…

"Is It Time to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'?"

"Undecided -- But with all the problems that need solving, I'm curious about why the Democrats are in a rush on this one."

6
Oh, Lord Basil, I'd forgotten how much I missed you. mwah!
7
gosh Dan must be too young to remember the 60s otherwise he wouldn't call these fluffy photo-ops 'Civil Disobedience'.....
8
@2 Go eat a doughnut.
9
Don't you get it? You're doing just what anti-gay protesters are doing... adding your voice to whether or not you like the decisions someone else makes. It doesn't matter whether or not it makes sense for a gay person to want to join the military. Everyone deserves the right to make that decision for themselves - gay or straight - while we all have the right to oppose war and work toward peace.

The focus is on equal civil rights. How can the so-called patriots be openly against all Americans having equal rights ... and get away with it?!
10
@4, I don't think it's that, more a belief that flagwrapping benefits our big gay image so much that the cost is worth it. I'm horrified, but can't argue with the short-term expediency.
11
Dan, I think that this is real progress. It isn't everything, but represents a thoughtful, potentially achievable way to eliminate DADT over the next year -- without relying on the Dems maintaining as large a margin in the Congress after November.

Yes, the Obama administration has been slow, has been dragged kicking into this, but the administration is there now. Of course, without the pressure, nothing would have happened. My thanks to everyone who has risked so much to make this happen.

I stopped my financial support to the DNC this year, arguing that while I would support Lamba Legal, the ACLU, individual candidates, I couldn't support the Dems until some real progress was made on DADT, DOM, etc. From my perspective, this is progress. Obama (and the Speaker and the Dems) have now invested real political capital in this. It isn't over -- in order to have a truly stable relationship, I really need my bf to have immigration rights through our relationship -- but this is an important step. No country that has legalized gay marriage or civil equality hasn't first eliminated barriers to gay men and lesbian women serving in the military.

The DNC will get a letter and a check from me the day this passes. The letter will demand more progress, however.
12
Dan, I think that this is real progress. It isn't everything, but represents a thoughtful, potentially achievable way to eliminate DADT over the next year -- without relying on the Dems maintaining as large a margin in the Congress after November.

Yes, the Obama administration has been slow, has been dragged kicking into this, but the administration is there now. Of course, without the pressure, nothing would have happened. My thanks to everyone who has risked so much to make this happen.

I stopped my financial support to the DNC this year, arguing that while I would support Lamba Legal, the ACLU, individual candidates, I couldn't support the Dems until some real progress was made on DADT, DOM, etc. From my perspective, this is progress. Obama (and the Speaker and the Dems) have now invested real political capital in this. It isn't over -- in order to have a truly stable relationship, I really need my bf to have immigration rights through our relationship -- but this is an important step. No country that has legalized gay marriage or civil equality hasn't first eliminated barriers to gay men and lesbian women serving in the military.

The DNC will get a letter and a check from me the day this passes. The letter will demand more progress, however.
13
sorry about the double post guys....leotarded today
14
This compromise sucks! Obama, Gates, and Mullens do not deserve individual discretion over when this policy comes to an end, and it's wrong of Congress to give it to them. They think they are being cute, but this treatment is subhuman and less than morality requires.

And why wouldn't the Pentagon support this deal? It gives them singular power to delay repeal for as long as they want without the pesky threat of Congress getting re involved. There study (which would never pass human subjects protection regulations) is an affront to decency and we shouldn't wait for them to certify that they have "evaluated the issues raised in ongoing litigation involving DADT" (essentially they can delay implementation as a means to pressure advocacy groups to drop their lawsuits).

And before signing onto an undemocratic scheme to give extra-constitutional powers to the executive branch to circumvent what should be considered as due process protection, we need to ask what exactly Obama, Gates, and Mullens have done to earn this trust. I'm pretty sure the answer is nothing.
15
Oh, and even though I may vomit in my mouth, I have to say it: thank you Senator Lieberman.
16
LukeJoe, Obama, Gates and Mullens have all stated that DADT should be repealed. See the NY Times article. This simply gives coverage to some Dems, either more conservative Dems or those from more conservative districts. It is a political ploy, but a reasonable one.

We need to hold the administration to its stated goal of repealing DADT, but I'm much more comfortable counting on Obama, Gates and Mullens next January than I am on the new Congress.
17
@2, Gaylord Tarragon, you are confusing your Civil War reenactment group with modern politics. You really need to slow down on the S'mores Schnapps. But be warned, General Sherman is leading the Gay Union on a march of destruction. They are coming to get you!
18
@17 Laugh now, but the only thing keeping decency loving hard traditionalists in the GOP from winning 100+ seats in the House and 20-25 in the Senate is the Kenyan Marxist homosexual's plan to suspend or even cancel the elections in November.

This man is at war with America and all it stands for - especially it's strong families. Barack Hussein Obama and his minions believe that America is an unjust country that has become strong at the expense of non-whites and homosexuals, and from an early age (especially once he mastered the tactics of Saul Alinsky) has set out to destroy America at it's very foundation.

Allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military, and have their gayness proferred for all to see, takes a wrecking ball to the dreams of the founding fathers.
19
Tom Toles has a good cartoon on the subject today: http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/tt/ or http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/…
20
Allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military, and have their gayness proferred for all to see, takes a wrecking ball to the dreams of the founding fathers.


My goodness, yes, you're absolutely right. All that stuff about all men being created equal, and having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No wonder the United States rebelled against Britain. Washington et al knew that, someday, the British would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military--and that it would not be a problem.

Now, if you would please indulge me, put on a head bandage and do that Hitler impersonation bit you did for some German tourists. That was hilarious.
21
Dan, are you crazy? This is by no means 'progress!!!' Did you read the compromise and others translations of it!? No where in the so-called 'compromise' is there anything about a nondiscrimination policy! I repeat, there will be NO NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY! that means that the pentagon will still be able to discharge service members for being gay when ever they want and when ever it is convenient for them. Sure, EVENTUALLY, at some undetermined time in the future service members will be able to serve openly but one miss step and they're out at the whim of the pentagon.

Ultimately, though, #1 has it right.
22
Game, set and match. Gays are now equal citizens of the United States.

Now, thanks to Obama's leadership, we will start seeing gay and lesbian troops getting married. Americans will see veterans and their families being denied benefits, just because they are gay. Full marriage equality will follow, as day follows the night.
23
Oh, and grow up, people. Without the "compromise" (which is really just a face-saving device), there would have been no repeal this year, and therefore no repeal till 2013 at the earliest. We won BIG today.
24
YAY progress! (As it were.)

@18: Dude, there aren't even 20-25 Democrat-occupied seats in the Senate up for grabs this year.
25
To the anarcho-communist pacifists: you need to understand that most people, including most gays and lesbians, do not think the way you think about the military.

The military is one of the most trusted public institutions, with over 80% approval. It is the nation's single largest employer. It provides an escape, and the opportunity to fund college and graduate degrees, to those with very few options at home. And it secures the pax americana, which you benefit enormously from whether you like it or not.
26
This scam is designed to
SHUT THE FUCKING HOMOS UP
until after the election.

Dan- hook, line and sinker.
27
@25, that's what expedience means.
28
Am I the only one who saw the picture and thought "Is there porn of that?"
29
Multi-millionaires are not Marxist Socialists.
Who are Obama's minions?
Yeah right. Because previous Marxist/Socialist regiemes were very tolerant and supportive of the homos. right? Oh wait....
30
@1 and @4: So well put.
31
Dan -- You are correct in giving SLDN a BZ (Navy for "good job")

But, the BS flag down on the field. Dan Choi's stunts did nothing to move this along. It was already moving. His stunts did nothing to speed it up, either.

Since you and your readers don't seem to know -- I'll tell you -- the military takes a long time to do anything (a lot of effort goes into planning, then execution). The Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) has been looking at this -- and will continue to do so, until the end of the summer. Their report is due to SecDef 01 Dec. They have a LOT of work to do.

For all those who keep bleating "Do it NOW!!" -- as the old saying goes -- if you want it badly...you'll get it badly.

I have served under this stupid law/policy for 16 years -- I can wait another 6 months to see this thing done right.

Credit is due to SecDef & CJCS as well (as well as all the kids -- the under 30 year olds in the military -- who just don't care, and wonder what all the fuss is about). Good for them!
32
"Why would a gay person want to be murdered for a corporate oligarchy that loathes and despises them?"

Oh my fucking god.

You are so far up your own ass you're looking at the underside of your own tonsils right now. Jesus Fucking Christ... "corporate oligarchy". Who fucking talks like that? NEWSFLASH JACKASS JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IS GAY DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE A MISERABLE PRETENTIOUS DOUCHEBAG.
33
My understanding is that the Secretary of the Army has already announced that once this passes Congress he will hold in abeyance all pending discharges. I expect the other civilian service leaders will follow his lead. Once Congress formally acts, regardless of Gates' timeline, it's a done deal.
34
I don't think Choi and his group had much to do with the turnabout. While I think Choi is an interesting man and very dedicated to both his country and his cause, I live, work and am pretty plugged in to DC politics and his protests were less than a blip. I heard much more chatter about the pilot on Maddow- where the military was loosing a very valuable asset- then I ever heard about Choi.
I think the looming midterms pushed liberal housemembers organize around this issue and once they had enough "gentleman's agreements" assembled they went to Obama and assured him they had the votes to get it done. The president wants to move now because if Dems have as bad a fall as the pundits predict, then repealing DADT is done.

In politics, most of the work is done behind the scenes. You don't even hear them talk about it until everything is 90% done.
35
Even if DADT is repealed tomorrow, how does that affect the Military Code of Conduct, which is what is used to ban gays from the military in the first place?
36
Um... It's more like they punted the problem to the Joint Chiefs…

The repeal bill will require the President, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to each certify in writing that a repeal would not harm military readiness before it would take effect. (Which in any case will not happen until after the Pentagon completes its review of how to implement a repeal.) So all they have to do is to wait for the review to be completed and then act disappointed when the Joint Chiefs say that, based on its results, they can not certify that that a repeal would not harm military readiness, and listen to the President expresses his deep disappointment that based on their assessment the law prohibits him from lifting the ban. His hands are simply tied!!! (Poor man… he’s just powerless.)

See how that works?… It’s off the back of Democrats in Congress… Hell, it’s even off the Presidents back, and completely in the hands of the Joint Chiefs, who are unelected and not subject to political influence.

And, even if fully ratified, it still doesn’t include any language prohibiting the Pentagon from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation… (Such a deal!)

Now that’s fierce advocacy at work for you!...

(But at least it will shut the faggots up for the election cycle!)