Subscribe to Breaking NewsWithers: Is DADT still around because of us?
Spend anytime reading the comment sections on gay political sites and there is lots of vitriol for President Barack Obama. From DOMA to DADT, there is a palpable sense the Obama administration has turned its back to the LGBT community. That is a fair reading few would dispute, even those who continue to support the White House. However, the Palm Center released a paper arguing DADT is still around because of conscious choices by gay activists.
Called “Self-Inflicted Wounds”, the report argues when chatter for Obama to sign a executive directive to get rid of DADT was at its peak, “a network of gay and gay-friendly activists, journalists and politicos worked to derail the possibility of a suspension of the ban.” Aaron Belkin, the paper’s author, makes the case that instead of focusing on a two tier attack, pushing the president and congress, the “gay and gay-friendly activists journalists and politicos” focused their attention solely on the legislative side of the DADT debate.
No names are listed but if you remember reporter Jason Bellini, in a Daily Beast video, hinted the Human Rights Campaign might have informed the White House the military ban should be worked on last, after the hate crimes bill (HRC head Joe Solmonese vigorously denied the implications of Bellini’s reporting).
Belkin’s paper will get a lot of press, as it should. Hopefully it will also engender a conversation about the nature of leadership. Maybe it’s time for us to recognize that a diverse group such as the “gay community” is cannot put all of its eggs in a leadership basket. Some who we think speak for the community are essentially on the hunt for access to power. There is nothing wrong with that, but if you are looking for change you might need to look beyond groups like HRC.
What’s so wrong with working on it after hate crimes? We need that legislation as well. How about an ENDA so that civilians aren’t fired from their jobs? With prop 8 and several cases going through the courts now is a good time to pressure the repeal of DOMA. I completely agree that the discriminatory DADT law needs to be done away with but who’s to say which order these should come in? If HRC felt like they had a better chance at this time to get a hate crimes bill passed then why not put more pressure on that and once we have that move on to the next one.
I agree with you Bryan. It always doesn’t seem fair to push one gay rights issue in front of all of the others. We need all LGBT rights extended to all LGBT citizens. Taking on one issue at a time gives those organizations, like HRC, GLAAD, AVER, ACLU, KNIGHTS OUT, and so many more who are advocating on our behalf, the needed time and energy to work out details and strategy so we get it right and complete the first time. I don’t think anyone is putting off any of the issues but rather focusing on the issues that will clear the hurdles first is they way to go. All the issues carry the same concern equally, but a good strategy will help get them through one at a time. As a gay military veteran, I would like nothing more that to see the repeal of DADT ASAP, but I will be patient and let it take it course to ensure it passes soon. When it comes to pass, I want to see that every LGBT person who was discharged just for being gay should be totally pardoned and that discharge be changed to an honorable discharge, their dishonorable discharge erased from their record and then offer them the chance to honorably return to military service if they so choose. That is just one of my wishes. The hate crimes bill is definately at the top of the list for I hope that this will send a message that you just can’t hurt or kill gays, like an open hunting season, with no federal recourse if the local level can’t, or even worse yet, won’t.
@Bryan Evans: I agree totally with Bryan. One cohesive effort focused on one issue, then move on to the next. Every battle won gives strength to the next fight, so it is in our best interest to stand together on one subject at a time.
If we don’t stay focused on one fight at a time, we are just delaying our overall goal of being equal in every aspect of society.
@Ted Larson: Thank you. You said it better than I did.
>What’s so wrong with working on it after hate crimes?
Absolutely.
Plus, in this age of Internet information, it’s vital to ask yourself who is reporting the information and how trustworthy is it? For example, who is The Palm Center? I’ve never heard of them. Who are the principals? What is their agenda?
Remember the initial salvos in the “Obama compared our love to incest and pedophilia!” war? When I read the most cited article, I couldn’t figure out who the author was and how he got his information (as best I could tell, he was a blogger…but isn’t it fishy that it was hard for me to tell?!). When I finally read the actual law brief, I found that he grossly misrepresented what was said in the brief. But it was too late. A non-reputable news source set the tone for the conversation, and the Obama bashing hasn’t stopped since.
We here in MA are undergoing a huge lesson in checking assumptions, patiently teasing out the details of a story, and questioning sources in our exploration of the “Crowley arrested Gates just outside his own home, was it racial profiling?” event. Things are not always as they appear to be…be patient, read multiple news sources, check their trustworthy quotient, check to see if they’re working an agenda, and be sure to read original documents (like the police report) instead of journalists slanted summaries of the documents.
>I agree with you Bryan. It always doesn’t seem fair to push one gay rights issue in front of all of the others.
Who told you life was fair? I know how harsh that last statement sounds, but this is NOT about fairness. It’s about understanding how a system works so that you can work the system. You prioritize your legislative agenda, often trying to figure out which items will build support for future items. Then, you build support for the items one at a time. Then, you knock them off. That’s a time tested, reasonable approach to working an agenda through the federal government.
If I had the ability to delete that last comment, I would. Sorry!
I was rushing. My bad. (Editors, feel free to delete the “who said life is fair” comment and this one.)
Okay, so it’s taken ten years so far to pass hate crimes legislation, at this rate we won’t get DOMA repealed for twenty more years. Haven’t you guys ever heard of divide and conquer? We need to rely on our numbers to attack all aspects of our fight simultaneously. Our foes definitely aren’t taking one issue at a time. I agree we need to have some focus on each issue, so we could have some groups fighting for marriage equality, and some for repealing DADT, and others for repealing DOMA. Why can’t we multitask, especially considering we currently have the friendliest government to our issues we’ve ever had?
It’s inexcusable if any LGBT organization delayed repeal of DADT, just so they could prioritize other things first. With repeated failures to stem anti-marriage legislation and constitutional amendments, with their opposition to the 2010 Prop 8 repeal (already used as fodder for our opponents), and their opposition to the federal marriage case, much of the LGBT equality establishment has lost credibility anyway. DADT repeal is highly popular, and ending enforcement would be a simple first step. DADT harms US military strength, costs taxpayer money, and harms families, in addition to harming the individual servicemembers directly affected. Delay in this case isn’t just wrong-headed, it’s unpatriotic.
The LGBT community can and does multi-task very well. I wish I could say the same for our congress and political leaders.
I have been looking to join a gay rights organization in NYC and I must say it’s very confusing and scary to think that I would volunteer for the likes of the HRC if their hearts and integrity are in question. What to do?
Lets not start the finger pointing game here.
While DADT is important I would ask how important? DADT *IS BAD* do NOT get me wrong, but it effects a small number of people in relation to anti discrimination bills or possibly DOMA. If anyone asked me to assign an importance level to each issue, *I* would do it this way.
1. Anti discrimination
2. DOMA
3. DADT
To me that is a reasonable importance level although 1 and 2 could be the same importance level as they are tightly intertwined.
Somebody has to make a decision as to what one fights for. We are not powerful enough to make all 3 a priority. Yes I know we got sh** on by one president but trying to change all three simultaneously is not realistic.
I am not sure who said what to who as to priorities, I would suggest DADT should be low (but still important). Myself I would *NEVER* opt for a military life but I guess some of us do. Again it would seem to be a low number. So why waste our effort on something that hurts so few? I hate to say this as I am sure I will be stepping on someone but I look at it like something similar to the blacks in the 1950’s. They did a divide and conquer first there was education then voting then equal opportunity. The probably wanted everything at once but realistically it was not feasible. They did the next best thing and they did it correctly.
With the Congress being anti gay as it is we have to pick and choose carefully our fights and yes it will be a fight. The Republicans and some of the Democrats are virulently against us.
Before getting upset sit back and think which item is more important (not just for you) but for all gay people.
I don’t know the politics of the scene.
But what we need is a national coming out day for gay military. And on that day, faced with the likely demand by 50,000 troops to be discharged under the law, that will be its end.
And the religious wrong will be faced with shutting up, or admitting their hatreds are more important then our nations security.
Or they will be faced with supporting gays in the military. Talk about a bunch of religious freaks nuts in a tightening vise.
Do it. It is the law, and nothing says you can’t come out.
The way I see it, the problem with the HRC and other GLBT friendly groups is that they are using an emotional platform to convey their/our needs and not a practical one. Okay, so it hurts our feelings to be put down for being G, L, B, or T, but that’s hardly a reasonable response to anti-GLBT legislation. On a more practical level, DADT doesn’t hurt so many feelings as it hurts actual lives. When gay soldiers are released from active duty because of homosexuality and not job performance, everyone suffers. Again, speaking of pragmatism and utility, hate crimes legislation is absolutely key in obtaining legal equality for GLBT people. Perhaps more than ending DOMA or DADT. A question for everyone: what safe-guards will be in place for GLBT soldiers if DADT is repealed BEFORE hate-crimes legislation passes?
Heh. I’m rather impressed with you, Withers. You usually strike me as one who resists making such controversial statements in an effort to not blame victims for being victims. Not that I think you’ve made such a statement in this column; I don’t. I think you’ve demonstrated that lobbying knows no bounds. Perhaps this is the lesson we as GLBT people need to learn… Also, as long as there are groups, there will be external prejudices and internal fighting. Humanity is a weird bunch!
For those who wonder about the ability to multi-task: it ain’t all about us, whoever we happen to be. No matter who the president is, no matter who won the election last November, the reality is that the US is facing massive financial meltdown which in turn affects the rest of the world’s financial institutions, we are STILL engaged in two wars in foreign nations, health care is at the point where it can no longer be ignored, and there are countless other issues that are too big to even think of right now. Frankly, as much as I want hate-crimes legislation and a repeal of anti-GLBT measures, I want universal health care, I want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end responsibly, and I want the members of the government to pass measures that will help alleviate the world’s financial burdens. I do not want these things to come at the expense of GLBT people, but how is it feasible for the federal government to focus on everything at once and fix everything in one fell swoop? Especially when the government is comprised of tens of thousands of people, all of whom have their own agendas and ideals of what the most important measures are that need to be dealt with. Additionally, there is and always has been a conflict between federal legislation and states’ rights to choose for themselves. No matter what measures the federal government passes to protect GLBT people, we should all prepare for smaller battles inside our own states, for it is inevitable.