Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Obama won’t repeal ‘DADT’ on his own
09.18.2008 8:32am EDT
(Washington) Democrat Barack Obama said if elected president he would not try to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on his own.
Obama said in an interview to run in gay publications Thursday that he wants to work with military leaders to build a consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members in the armed forces. He said that wouldn’t be accomplished by attaching a signing statement to a military spending bill, a process that President Bush has used to set other military policies.“I want to make sure that when we revert ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ it’s gone through a process and we’ve built a consensus or at least a clarity of what my expectations are so that it works. My first obligation as the president is to make sure that I keep the American people safe and that our military is functioning effectively,” Obama said. “Although I have consistently said I would repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be.”
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In 1993, President Clinton implemented the policy, a compromise after he was unable to make good on his campaign pledge to open the military to gays.
Obama’s interview was with Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, on behalf of the Gay History Project, a coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender publications. Republican presidential nominee John McCain did not respond to an interview request, Segal said.
Obama also declined to commit to have his attorney general support a lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gives states the right to refuse to recognize such marriages. Obama said he’s not sure the 1996 law would be overturned by the courts and he prefers a legislative solution.
I’m leary of all of this. My girlfriend is talking about signing up for the army in a few months for quite awhile now. I’ve been staunchly opposed the entire time but after Obama got elected I began to be more open to the idea. I guess that was just stupid idealism on my part to believe that anything would change. Unfortunately I don’t know what I’m going to do about my whole situation at home if this BS is going to keep up…
Repealing DADT is one of the highest priorities. Many of our brave military enlistees come from small southern towns where there are few opportunities, and the right wing churches run wild.
But when these people find out that they have gay comrades who do their job, and risk their lives for their str8 comrades just like the other way around, there will be a whole new group of Americans who accept gay people. It won’t happen overnight, but it’s impact will be enormous.
As for Obama’s thoughts, all he is saying is that he wants to build a consensus. He’ll also have time to clean out the bigot officers, e.g. think of disgraced General Peter Pace, who was forced to retire, and should be summarily booted out of the Marine corp fraternity.
I can live with that, but we don’t let him forget.
As far as a “short attention span”, just exatly how many more decades does this have to continue for it moves beyong the range of short? Or do you think this injustice and inequality has only been happening for the last 3 months?
Yeah laws are all fine and good until a president decides he doesnt need to follow them. The constitution gives Congress only the right to declare war, yet there have been military “actions” where our soldiers have died by order of the president, rather than an official, legal declaration of Congress. We have a Bill of Rights that specifically addresses Haebeas Corpus and the rights to privacy, yet a president can disregard those and have these laws suspended to achieve his agenda. There are laws which govern the rules of engagement and the treatment of prisoners of war, yet these can be disregarded as well when a president decided that the torture of prisoners might be useful. Give me a break! If the laws can be conveniently forgotten for dubious and highly unethical and unconstitutional reasons, then I certainly have no problem with a president assuming the same authority to use that power to do the right thing in tems of civil rights and human equality. You cannot have it both ways and the precedent has already been set.
It looks like some people here have I know after 8 years of George Bush have an unrealistic expetation of OBama to be able to wave a magic wand and all will be instantly done at his behest and commnand to our supreme satisfaction. A medieval monarchy workded much that way, but in a modern Western 21st century deomcracy things don’t work that way. We have an executive branch, legislative branch and a judicial branch of our government, checks and balances.
Obama has to convince the Congress as well as the military that this is best for the American people and best for military readiness. This is not a dictatorship that rules by order and decrea out of the mouth and from the hand of ONE MAN only. We are a democracy with a system with rules, laws, procedures and proper channels that must be followed.
Obama has been a constitutional lawyer and has been in the Illinois legislature and in the US Senate long enough to know what must be done to achieve what he wants for repealing a bad law. You finally have the man with the right philosophy and the right vision for our country of making a fairer and more equal land for all.
I see some people here exhibiting the typical American short attention span style impatience for wanting it all RIGHT NOW. Sorry folks, in an democracy that folloes the rules that it is obligated to adhere to, it doesn’t all happen RIGHT NOW. Both sides pro and con have to be listened to or it is not a democracy. Democracy cuts both ways. It is impossible to please everyone 100% of the time and compromises somtines will anger one group or anther are can be a painful reality of having a two or more party system, where sharp differences of opnion that can make people scraam all kinds of stuff are aired.
The CinC can not give orders as easily as you’d like with the military. All you would have to do is look at the US Constitution to find this out.
Congress is in charge of the Good Order and Discipline of the Military. They also are in charge of the UCMJ (or Laws) that govern the Military. That’s why the CinC can not just “issue an order”. It has to go through Congress just like Clinton did. It was Congress’ decision to go with DADT not his and all he could have done was Veto that decision.
There is a Bill to repeal the Article 135 of the UCMJ, this is what makes it so homosexuals can not serve in the military.
If some of you can not at least get a grasp on the Laws or the make-up that causes the problems and why he HAS to work with people… well I don’t know what to say. That’s just plain ignorance.
John Said: “Clinton tried ordering the military to do something they weren’t prepared to do and look what happened.”
Tried? Tried!?! Is the Preseident the CinC of all the armed forces of this country or not? Clinton sold us out, period. As far as I am concerned, if the CinC can’t issue an order telling his troops that gays can and will serve with distinction and deserve respect for that service, then he doesn’t deserve to be leading our county’s troops. If the generals cannot take orders from their commander, then they need to be replaced, or in time of war there is the firing squad for treason. If the military is going to be run according to whatever orders the generals feel like obeying, then we are in deep shit.
Josh Elder Said: “I laugh at the ignorance of people in the comments of this article. You would rather have Obama FORCE the repeal of DADT by hiding it under another bill, causing those opposed to it to mostly likely fight it, not implement it and what not than to have Obama explain the expectations and CORRECTLY pass the bill?”
Josh…try making your point without resorting to insults and name calling. There is no need to be rude just because you disagree with someones opinion.
There won’t be a federal civil unions bill for the simple reason that it isn’t a federal issue. I would oppose a federal civil unions bill for the simple reason that the last thing I want is for Congress to control my rights as a gay man.
I think the provision of DOMA limiting Federal spousal benefits to opposite-gender couples will be repealed by 2012. As for DOMA itself, it might be repealed, but I’d much rather see a Federal judiciary that will be disposed to strike it down as a gross over-reaching by the Federal government into areas properly reserved to the states.
Of course, none of this will happen if McCain is elected.
What should we honestly expect out of an Obama presidency by 2012?
The Matthew Shepard Act is the least controversial piece of legislation and enjoys widespread support (mainly because it only symbolically reiterates what’s already law in 45 states and doesn’t actually do anything new). If a Democratic government can’t get this gimme through, they’re even more pathetic than the conservatives say they are. They might as well disband in shame. This is a no-brainer.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act has cleared the House. And there are probably enough votes to pass it in the Senate as well. If they expect to enjoy my continued support in the future, this is the minimum I’d settle for. The Democrats need to close the deal on this one. This is also a no-brainer.
The repeal of DADT and immigration for same-sex partners fall under the category of “would be nice.” If they can get either done as well, then one could say it was a fairly successful (rather than simply adequate) presidency from the standpoint of LGBT rights.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on federal civil unions or repealing DOMA. In the very unlikely event that this happens by 2012, then the Democrats will have absolutely exceeded my expectations. But I doubt Pelosi and Reid will even allow it to come to a vote. They know they don’t have the necessary support.
In black and white. People still think that Obama is for change? What change is he talking about?
Sounds like more of the same for the gay folk. But man, he loves our money.
Bob Barr is more and more our man.