Credit where credit is due:
The Obama administration has decided to accept an appeals-court ruling that could undermine the military’s ban on service members found to be gay.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn’t be required to argue the merits in her individual case.
But there’s a catch:
…the case will be returned to the district court, and administration officials said they will continue to defend the law there.
When I voted for Obama, I kinda thought this would happen. I guess it was all just big talk, at least on gay issues.
It seems like he’s hoping the courts will decide the constitutionality of it for him, maybe so he doesn’t have to disappoint the African-American community that generally comes out against gay issues.
Shrewd political move. It’s very “Clinton” of him. I will be holding it against him.
So change the US Supreme Court, which is where this will end up in the hands of the radical right “justices”.
Just a sec – did we ever hear about any firings of gay officers under Bush? A gross injustice is a gross injustice, but it feels like the injustice is hitting home this time, for these highly publicized firings of actual people whose lives are being affected – the issue (for me at least) is no longer abstract: I now have faces to associate with this policy.
Well, if the case returns to the district court, the administration basically has to continue to fight it, if the strategy is to bring the debate out in court. While I would very much prefer the swift repeal of DADT, making the government prove its case on the individual merits every time will likely slow down the pace of discharges and add a great deal of evidence about the lack of harm to the military from having gay service members. That sort of evidence is going to be important when it comes before Congress to permanently change the law.
@ 5,
We heard about it all the time. Remember the firings of something like 65 Arabic translators because they had teh gay? And all the non-outrage and total disinterest that produced at the time?
It did lead to that funny quote from some congresscritter about how all the terrahists have to do is form a platoon of lesbians to chase us outta Baghdad, since US troops are sooo ah-scared of the homos.
@2
Wrong answer.
True the support among African Americans isn’t as high but more support the repeal of DADT than don’t support it.
http://www2.winthrop.edu/sbrl/winthroppo…
This poll was taken among African Americans in the South.
The question was also in the Quinnipac poll on marriage equality in New York. That poll was pretty much evenly split on the DADT question.
There is a lot of support for repealing DADT among military households also. A lot of military families live in the South, so that may account for greater support among African Americans in the South for DADT repeal.
White evangelical Christians support DADT 53-40, that is in the Quinnipac poll also. There is the key opposition.
Um, aka “This is how we can act to appear productive and ‘on their side’ without actually doing anything or causing any real change.” Fuck you, Obama Administration. Spineless pussies.
By the way, I got to the Loveschild roasting late, Dan, a little too late to be fashionable.
REPEAL DADT NOW
Having said that, Obama just sucks on this (and most gay civil rights issues).
One would have thought, one recruiters were consistently under quota, this would have been a no-brainer.
In fact, some were counting on DADT being repealed out of necessity, thanks to a shortage of staff.
Shows what I know.
I get that Obama may be playing “smart” politics on this issue, but I find it contemptible. Guess that’s why I’m not a politician.
I can somewhat understand why he might want to do this (though I vehemently disagree). What I can’t understand is his PR. Why leave such a muddled message?
I think a more coherent strategy would be to speak plainly and honestly to the American people: “Luvs ya. Mean it. But not right now.” Or “Look, we need to study the issue more.” Whatever.
But hiding behind Congress is a joke. All the subterfuge does is piss everyone off. And I think plenty of folks would be willing to patient, if he just gave us something to go on…
I get that Obama may be playing “smart” politics on this issue, but I find it contemptible. Guess that’s why I’m not a politician.
I can somewhat understand why he might want to do this (though I vehemently disagree). What I can’t understand is his PR. Why leave such a muddled message?
I think a more coherent strategy would be to speak plainly and honestly to the American people: “Luvs ya. Mean it. But not right now.” Or “Look, we need to study the issue more.” Whatever.
But hiding behind Congress is a joke. All the subterfuge does is piss everyone off. And I think plenty of folks would be willing to patient, if he just gave us something to go on…
He, or rather the administration, did say that. It’s not Obama’s fault that you’re not paying attention.
What I love is how you actually think you’ll get civil rights thru the current Supreme Court.
They won’t be handed to you.
You have to play hardball to get them.
How difficult would it be to mobilize a grassroots congressperson-calling or letter-writing campaign? And would it work?
It would be a sweet victory if we could make it happen in spite of Obama’s hesitation.
How difficult would it be to mobilize a grassroots congressperson-calling or letter-writing campaign? And would it work?
It would be a sweet victory if we could make it happen in spite of Obama’s hesitation.
@16: They said that, but the Pentagon is not actually currently studying the issue. See here.
Obama isn’t acting, in part at least, because he knows the Dems in congress won’t support him. I believe we lost the house in the first election after Clinton inaug because folks were angry about a do nothing congress. The Dems were fighting Clinton so hard, that the public joined in. Which is also in part why the Repubs recently got pitched out. See Dems refusal to fund Gitmo closing, for example, among many others. Party discipline, folks!
@21
Party discipline my gay black ass. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am TIRED of all the sweet talkings and whispers in the ear that the Democratic Party does to the LGBT community every election cycle (in order to get our money, our foot soldiering, and our votes) then delivers nothing in terms of legislation for gay civil equality.