DADT was a compromise. This compromise is going to leave the decision up to the Pentagon, which has been ratfucking reform since 1993. Lucy's ready with the football, Charlie Brown.
I'm afraid the Pentagon's just rolled Congress as well as Obama. Hope I'm wrong. Only 78% of Americans want this changed.

Yeah, because instead of getting fired, gays should be getting fired at. Big improvement. Er. . . .

I thought that in a democracy, congress and the president were supposed to dictate policy to the military, not the other way around.

I'm guessing that the reason that they're doing it this way is concern for the midterm elections. It passes without really passing now and then it doesn't matter what happens at the midterms b/c it's already passed the congressional vote. I'm not saying that this is the right/best way to go about it, especially considering that 78% want DADT repealed, but I'm sure that's why it's going down like this.

All this action, brought to you by the political manpower of the Human Rights Campaign.

Or you know, not.

Enough with the DADT. Forming the crux of our activism with something like this and calling ourselves activists in the vein of Gandhi or MLK, thinkers in the vein of Thoreau, is incorrect. It's wrong. It's unjust. While all of them would have agreed that focused and odious prohibitions like DADT are wrong, none of them would have agreed with the rhetoric of saying you're practicing Civil Disobedience in order to serve your nation in wartime.

Push for an end to DADT, not a beginning to, what 5280 so eloquently stated, the GLBT community "getting fired at".

Passing ENDA and repealing DOMA are noble. Repealing DADT is just writing a contract in blood. No more.

http://www.englishcafe.com/blog/martin-l…

Our nation supports our troops, but why wouldn't we? They're our neighbors. They're our friends. They're our allies. We want the best for them because it means the best for us. But we need to make it clear to our own soldiers, if we are to make it clear to anyone we're fighting against, that it's time to work to an end, not an endless series of beginnings. Nobody fights wars to win peace.

I'm completely and unceasingly opposed to expending so much energy on the "easy" goal of DADT under the guise of "it will make repealing DOMA and passing ENDA" easier. It won't. Never. It serves a small population, an estimated 66,000, when we have a domestic population of 300,000,000 that would be made all the better for improving domestic policy by repealing DOMA and passing ENDA. Begging for expedience rather than justice is giving up the game before the first play.

Exalting Lt. Dan Choi, for all his sacrifices, as a new era MLK is a slap in the face of anyone who has ever marched in MLK's name and an even bigger slap to those who have marched with the man himself.

Enough is enough.

You all need to ask yourself: are you made better by throwing the game now, by pinning your hopes on a compromise like pushing all of our energy onto a DADT repeal? Does it make that ring on your finger worth any more? Does it ensure you fair access to hospitals in Seattle, Washington and Mobile, Alabama? Does it build goodwill with the community that gained its greatest strength fighting against war? Does it put a good face to you abroad, that you can kill your brother but not marry him? Does it make our words against nations that would kill our GLBT brothers and sisters abroad worth any more that we still prohibit, ban, kill and burn them here as well? Do we gain more by taking up arms or throwing up arms?

@ Baconcat,

I agree with you 100% that the focus should be on passing ENDA and repealing DOMA, but the fact is that we live in a failed right-wing country governed by our worst citizens, many of which actually believe that it's the military that grants us our rights, so the key to unlocking the shriveled, dead hearts of our "leaders" is appealing to their crass, mindless militarism.

@7: There is no century in which that works. Slaves have fought for the nation that enslaved them and still remained slaves in everything but name. The fantasy of buying your freedoms through unwavering allegiance to the wartime standard of any nation is something that has been used by the free to fool the chained.

Forget the old lie. Freedom through war is no freedom at all.

The abolition of DADT will cause a realignment of hierarchies. Remember the voting age was lowered to 18 because it was thought unfair that you could fight and die for your country and not vote. Same with the drinking beer and wine on military bases before the implementation of the nationwide 21 year old drinking age requirement.
It was the revulsion at the prejudice shown at returning black vets in the south that was one of the reasons why Harry Truman to issue his desegregation order to the military.
It is going to be REAL hard for some bigot to claim some Gay military hero is not entitled to full civil rights, including marriage. We fight the fights we can win.

@4: i agree. i think it's the kind of chess we should expect from Obama. teh gaez will be off congress' and the administration's ass, and the military christianists won't have to face their panicky irrational fears until next year.

why the fuck would a gay person WANT to be in the military, regardless? NO ONE should be in the fucking military - it's basically a budget-destroying, nationalist welfare program that enables our corporate imperialism.

@ 8,

Possibly in a greater historical sense, but every western country that has lifted its ban on gay troops eventually legislated employment protections and marriage equality or civil unions.

@11: Correlation does not imply causation.

To delve further, let's discuss a more relevant example than "other nations integrated and then gained civil unions", one here in these united states, one referenced before -- desegregation of the armed forces:
1) After desegregation, how long did it take Congress to afford any package of rights, large or small, to black america?
2) After desegregation, how long did it take the entire nation to remove race-based prohibitions on the federal level? State level?
3) After desegregation, how many acts of congress were predicated on affording black americans rights due to their ability to serve in the military?
4) After desegregation, what percentage of those that signed the desegregation order were behind further bills, acts or laws to promote further extensions of rights to black america?
5) After desegregation, how many states within the South issued popular mandates toward similar measures of desegregation or civil rights? How many attempted to put such measures up to a vote?
6) After desegregation, how many states that had standing laws regarding segregation willingly desegregated public and private facilities?
7) What percentage of landmark rulings by the SCOTUS and landmark bills in Congress regarding civil rights were issued in the 5 years after Truman signed Executive Order 9981?

@ 11 - Agreed.

Baconcat, I can't help but think that DADT helps legitimize other forms of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Like it or not, we live in a country where service in the military is considered an expression of patriotism. The Vietnam War was pretty much why we ended up with the 18th Amendment, after all. When you have gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, that does make it easier to push for further reforms.

Besides, there are a lot of gays and lesbians (my guess would be a whole shitton of lesbians) whose lives would be made a hell of a lot easier by repeal. Surely their experiences shouldn't be discounted.

I also don't think the GLBT movement has formed its crux around DADT repeal; it more seems that this is the low-hanging fruit. Even if you would characterize repeal as a small victory, it's still the kind of victory that will help energize the base.

@ Baconcat,

Dude, that's a helluva lot of homework for someone who totally agrees with you.

The deceitful DADT Compromise (Why exactly are we "compromising" anyway?) is another glorious win for President Unprincipled Pragmatism and his Iago, Rahm.

“We have huge congressional majorities making it very difficult to legitimately maximize the Fuckover Factor, but don’t worry we’ll figure out a way,” the President announced in his prepared remarks.

Cue the Obamatons standing ovations and cheering for another backstabbing, non-accomplishment, and then their angry denouncements of the Angry Leftist Homos for not being thrilled at getting screwed over, once again.

The Republicans are still mad as H-E-L-L ’cause there’s no Hummusekshal Extermination camps set up, to which they’ll all eventually be sent anyway, so expect continuing calls for President Farce Advocate’s assassination.

All in all, it’s a win all around.

@ Baconcat: The precondition to gay rights advancement is now, as it has always been, coming out of the closet.

For Americans who don't go to college, the Armed Forces are the place to learn about the diversity of American culture. Having open gay service will allow many thousands of people to make a new gay friend.

[For Americans who do go to college, repealing DADT will allow ROTC and recruiters back onto campuses, with a concomitant civilizing effect of liberal arts majors making their careers in the Armed Forces.]

I agree with you, Baconcat. I think efforts should be focused on passing ENDA and repealing DOMA. But, I guess I understand why, seeing that 78% support it's repeal, DADT is getting the lion share of attention. I'm hopeful that its repeal will be helpful as a means of getting ENDA passed and DOMA repealed.

I think the US has lost freedom as a core value. I think that we are a culture that is embedded in fear and cultural narcissism. The military has become sacrosanct and cuts to the budget are viewed as unpatriotic and un-American. And, from that point of view the repeal of DADT will be a blow. Those who tie "God Bless the USA" to their Biblical based morality will be forced to deal with the fact that there is and should always be a separation of their church and the state, especially for those who's minds still echo with George W. Bushes campaign theme of 2004: "If we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them over hear." This will be a tough pill to take. And, my hope is that once they see that the military survives that the fear that drives inequality will begin to dissipate and the US will then follow other western countries that later legislated employment protections and marriage equality after lifting the ban on gays serving in the military.

May I suggest that you check out, if you haven't already been following, Dr. Jillian T. Weiss on Bilerico about getting ENDA passed. I've appreciated her coverage.

This whole thing is a damn mess.

Baconcat, Mile-High, Original Andrew, and Anne in MA, I'm glad to see you're all having this discussion. Seen as an outsider, the entire tone of present discourse just seems disturbingly dysfunctional. Hearing the logic of Dan (both Choi and Savage) and Rachel Maddow is just . . . eerie.

I can't really articulate how twisted this looks to me when other civil rights concerns seem to make a lot more sense. DADT really should be the footnote, the effect of everything else, rather than the lead breakthrough for having the right to kill and be killed. Pol Pot sort of pithily said it: "Why would a gay person want to be murdered for a corporate oligarchy that loathes and despises them?"

The closest analogue I can muster is still pretty pale and weak. It's like . . . no, there's really not an analogue I can think of (I was going to refer to first nations and black Americans being able to serve side-by-side for a country that basically shat upon them at home, but that's not really a suitable comparison).

This brings new meaning to a dysfunctional family circus. It also makes me sick to my stomach.

@13: It does nothing of the sort, not with most of the country supporting repeal on its face, and the political capital expended by a DADT repeal may -- as it did with desegregation -- derail certain other measures.

@14: You make no sense. A DADT repeal will allow many in the gay community to feel they're off the hook. SLDN will quietly disband or retrench, folks that were primarily focused on DADT will act as though they had done us all a favor, taking them largely off the hook (how many of us have gotten into the "who's marched and rallied the most?" argument?). And again, the political capital expended by a DADT repeal is a heavy liability toward more comprehensive action.

@16: Your argument ignores the entirely public recognition that there are many GLBT soldiers (60-70k), many -- and perhaps most -- of whom serve freely with their fellow soldiers. Discharges seem to happen largely within the administrative arms of the armed forces. Translators, flight deck specialists, and so on. The repeal of DADT is an executive solution to an administrative problem. Certainly there are issues with homophobes within the ranks, but even the most liberal of colleges has had their GLBT student org banners defiled, protests by conservative students, and so on. And the armed forces are absolutely filled to the brim with racists. The largest portion of fear within the military by GLBT soldiers relating to DADT is of the administrative level, frequently older and of a different time than most of the grunts doing the hard work. Were it of their fellow soldiers, why appeal to openness? Even Harvey Milk said that visibility and coming out came before freedom. Even MLK said we need to come face to face with our oppressors to find our freedom.

I do agree, however, that if GLBT servicemembers are serious about wanting repeal, they must come out. Now. It will prove the point that they do not cause the commotion on the ground that the back office is predicting they will.

OFF TOPIC

God I want Dan Choi to go into porn. Something tells me he would look awesome on his back.

@18: Simply put, demanding rights to fabricate an argument ("we serve openly!") in order to make further demands is wrong and intellectually dishonest. And it won't work. Not with 78% of people already supporting repeal. You can't prove a point by pointing to a situation you yourself precipitated. Nobody would take you seriously.

DADT repeal under this pretense and further use of a DADT repeal for other gains will backfire greatly. DADT's repeal should happen as an administrative matter of fact, simply ending a policy that has no practical purpose. Not everything is about social justice, sometimes it's just clearing out a useless policy spearheaded by impractical reactionaries of over 15 years ago (many of whom are retired or near-death, QED).

@21: Well said. Cheers. I'll buy you a martini.

Why are the fights to end DADT and DOMA seen as mutually exclusive? Why can't we fight both fronts simultaneously? The only reason DADT reform is getting so much more press is because Choi and people like him have been such vocal activists. I guarantee DOMA repeal would get just as much attention if marriage activists were willing to stand up and be just as vocal.

And Baconcat- DADT isn't just about soldiers at war. A friend of mine in the coast guard was shipped off this morning to the gulf coast to help with the oil spill. Does he not deserve the right to serve openly...?

The unspoken upside to repealing DADT is the visibility it creates within the armed forces. It's fact that demonizing and dehumanizing another group of people (like gays) becomes much harder when you have a face to associate with that group. When Middle America sees a facet of gay society that appears and behaves like they do, suddenly gays aren't just some alien society they see exclusively in Will & Grace reruns and Pride parades- they begin to realize gays are people just like them, and they begin to treat us as equals.

Side note: Some of you all need to get out more. The American military is one of the greatest forces for good on the planet. I challenge anyone to name a single country that would be a democracy today if America had not accepted its role as an imperial power. If America disbanded its military now, maybe Indian democracy would hold out 20 years. Maybe.

Are the current wars a good idea? No (perhaps debatable as to Afghanistan). Is the military an essential institution? Absolutely.

Will repeal of DADT strengthen the military, and reduce its operating costs? Yes. So let's repeal DADT.

@23: This never worked for black, native or filipino america and many other non-white male groups. This idea that a uniform makes you more worthy in the eyes of those who hate you the most is an insult to hundreds of thousands of POC veterans that came back to even more hostility than they left. Military service is no protection, service to one's country and military, even out of uniform, is no protection.

Simmons Parker was a Numunu codetalker in WW2. He yanked a nazi flag down off a french church and gave it to Charles Chibitty who held onto it until his death. He was also a great-great uncle of mine. He died long before he was recognized, long before the government even put his name on a monument. Military service did him no favors, and even for all that service, even for helping lead to the capture of a variety of physical cipher machines that Alan Turing helped crack, he received no medal until 60 years after his service ended. Long after his death.

And Alan Turing? For his service to the British Military? He was pushed to suicide.

You can talk sweepingly about how this gesture would make inroads, but it won't. And you insult thousands upon thousands who saw no benefit from selfless service. And after all this, you have the unmitigated gall to say we won't be seen as just some buffoons at a pride parade or on Will and Grace, if only we put on a uniform and march proudly?

I usually agree with Baconcat, but now I'm thinking I don't need that T-shirt after all...

A win is a win. Let's take them where we can get them.

@26: Approval neither desired nor required.

The repeal of DADT is a good thing, only insomuch that it ends discharges and focused prohibitions. Deluding ourselves into thinking anything more will come out of it is myopic and disregards the greater burden of history. Momentum, demographically speaking, is entirely on our side. Any greater changes will not be because Joe or Jane Homo walked by in a uniform, and arguing that it even remotely changes minds that matter, with 78% support for a repeal, is ridiculous.

How fitting that you counter my sweeping generalizations with your own Baconcat- how on Earth could you possibly know that the repeal of DADT won't make inroads to middle America for gays? Are you clairvoyant, or just incredibly pessimistic?

I'm saying those that wish to serve should be allowed to do so. That's what all of this boils down to. Whether you think the military is necessary or not is irrelevant. When DADT is repealed, you can still choose not to serve. simple as that.

@28: I've very plainly demonstrated context, both historic and current. I've shown my work, now show me yours. I'm calling your bluff: where is your proof, in history or currently, that says that success with DADT's will not be used to deflect action on other more pressing and decisive action?

@30: I bet you get laid a lot, seeing as how you understand women so well. Assuming you're male, I double-dog-dare you to try and talk a lesbian into bed. Send me your x-rays afterwards, k?

I like what @9 said - which most of you probably didn't see because it is an unregistered comment: The abolition of DADT will cause a realignment of hierarchies. Remember the voting age was lowered to 18 because it was thought unfair that you could fight and die for your country and not vote. Same with the drinking beer and wine on military bases before the implementation of the nationwide 21 year old drinking age requirement.
It was the revulsion at the prejudice shown at returning black vets in the south that was one of the reasons why Harry Truman to issue his desegregation order to the military.
It is going to be REAL hard for some bigot to claim some Gay military hero is not entitled to full civil rights, including marriage. We fight the fights we can win.

I wonder if being a veteran makes me subject to ridicule in light of the fact that so many gays and lesbians are and were in the military? Does someone now automatically presume I am gay because I have been in the military? What the living heck does all of this sexual orientation business have to do with defending this country of ours? People are right when they say gays are petty. You people are.