Obama to tackle military gay ban at 'right time'

[snopes]

President Barack Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33164137...news-military/

[Dactyl]

The UK was basically forced to reverse it's position by the ECHR, although the Labour government of the time, with its large majority and pro-equality policies would probably have done so sooner rather than later anyway.

A quick google suggests the issue has never made it to SCOTUS, is this really the case? I find it hard to believe that DADT would be constitutional.

[Illuminatus]

AFAIK, homosexuality is not a protected class in most federal legislation, and the SCOTUS would likely defer to the President in an area so integral to his CinC power.

[Ramblin' Dave]

President Barack Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military

It already is the right time Mr. President. Guess what? You're not going to reach bipartisan consensus with the bigots. Ever. And you should stop trying.

[BamaRainbow]

I don't believe that Obama will do anything. He's already made it QUITE clear that he expects CONGRESS to end the ban (although, he WILL be there taking all the credit when he signs the bill that overturns DADT).
Of course, what should anyone in the LGBTQ community have expected from a man who, for part of his early campaigning in the South (mainly South Carolina), invited Donnie McClurkin as the tour headliner (and then swore that he didn't know anything about McClurkin's views on gays, only that McClurkin was popular with Black evangelicals) and THEN, announced that Rick Warren would be delivering the Inaugural invocation? (Of course, in order to placate the community, Obama announced Gene Robinson would be offering a prayer at the inauguration as well, but guess whose voice was missing from the televised coverage of the inauguration?)
Naturally, next year Congress will find a reason to not work on lifting the ban; the Congress has never had the guts to tackle any issue of genuine substance DURING an election year. If Obama's numbers don't improve drastically by Nov 2, 2010, the Democrats may find themselves with dramatically lower margins of control, making any hope of overturning DADT the proverbial "impossible dream." Even if the GOP doesn't regain control of either the House or Senate (which I don't expect, but let's not forget the massive swing in the House after the 1994 elections), the Dems will be very hard-pressed to push a DADT repeal, and the President will most certainly not do anything that might possibly jeopardize his 2012 re-election bid (read--gays and lesbians, in the political scheme of things, aren't nearly as valuable as keeping conservative and center-right Democrats in the fold).

[fitz1980]

I think he's making a cynical move but I can understand it. Right now he's fighting tooth and nail for meaningful healthcare reform and can't even get enough people to support that. Lets not forget that there is still a lot of homophobia in the black community. He doesn't want or need black preachers to go on TV denouncing him or for more conservative Democrats to jump ship. Personally I think that he's going to wait until the next election cycle (either the midterms or his reelection campaign in 2012) and use it to "energize the base." Like I said it's a cynical move to put the gay community on the back burner since they did support him, but everyone knows good and well that they aren't going to vote Republican any time soon.

[Dara bhur gCara]

I can't decide what BamaRainbow hates more: Obama, or formatting text in order to make it clear and legible.

[Broken Sword]

Originally Posted by fitz1980

I think he's making a cynical move but I can understand it. Right now he's fighting tooth and nail for meaningful healthcare reform and can't even get enough people to support that. Lets not forget that there is still a lot of homophobia in the black community. He doesn't want or need black preachers to go on TV denouncing him or for more conservative Democrats to jump ship. Personally I think that he's going to wait until the next election cycle (either the midterms or his reelection campaign in 2012) and use it to "energize the base." Like I said it's a cynical move to put the gay community on the back burner since they did support him, but everyone knows good and well that they aren't going to vote Republican any time soon.

I actually think that it could potentially happen any time after health care is dealt with. I don't know if that means immediately after health care is dealt with, but I think it could be as early as the end of 2009, likely in 2010, and if not by then then very likely in 2011. I don't think he would wait until the election year.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Dara bhur gCara

I can't decide what BamaRainbow hates more: Obama, or formatting text in order to make it clear and legible.

Paragraph breaks are in the tank for Obama.

[lyra_silvertongue]

Did anyone see this last week?

Pentagon Airs Criticism of "Don't Ask"

An article in the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal calls in unambiguous terms for lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, arguing that the military is essentially forcing thousands of gay men and women to lead dishonest lives in an organization that emphasizes integrity as a fundamental tenet.

The article in the upcoming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, which is published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was written by an Air Force colonel who studied the issue for months while a student at the National Defense University in Washington and who concludes that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness.
....
"The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value - integrity," he writes. "Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the enormous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them."

He continues: "In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of 'equality for all,' places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve."

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Dactyl

. . . I find it hard to believe that DADT would be constitutional.

Originally Posted by Illuminatus

AFAIK, homosexuality is not a protected class in most federal legislation, and the SCOTUS would likely defer to the President in an area so integral to his CinC power.

As Illuminatus notes, the courts have always held very aloof from interfering with military matters.

The military can do a lot of things that aren't "constitutional" -- like, well, order people to go into combat and get killed. Imagine if there were a "wrongful death" lawsuit over every combat fatality!

Silas (I'd like to see an end to all wars -- maybe that's the way?)

[Rebochan]

I imagine "the right time" is right around the time he's going to actually fight for a public option.

Bitter? Me? Noooo!