PDA

View Full Version : Don't Ask, Don't Tell re: the Obama Administration


Bloodcinder
05-20-2009, 18:08
This is an article written by my liberal gay friend for our school newspaper.

Obama must end don't ask/don't tell now (source (http://www.da.wvu.edu/show_article.php?story_id=42957))

According to statistics released this week by the Pentagon, 619 soldiers were discharged from the armed forces of the United States in fiscal year 2008 because of their sexual orientation.

This number is more or less consistent with the amount of annual discharges over each of the last five years under the law that prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military.

Annual discharges in that time have averaged 654. In sum, since the policy began in 1993, more than 13,000 troops have been discharged.

The shorthand title commonly given to this policy is “don’t ask, don’t tell” – a memorable but entirely inaccurate description of the law.

The “don’t tell” part is a mandate, but “don’t ask” is just a suggestion. Any soldier of any rank may be discharged for admitting to either being gay, thinking about being gay, engaging in same-sex activity or having a same-sex relationship. Any commander, meanwhile, may initiate a formal investigation on as much as a suspicion of homosexual inclination.

We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that gays have the ability to serve in the military as long as they don’t announce it.

A soldier who has never spoken a word to anyone in the military hierarchy can be investigated and discharged all the same.

There are no privacy protections from anti-gay crusaders. It is simply not the case that only soldiers who choose to make public proclamations of their sexuality are discharged under the policy, though some certainly do this as a means of making a political statement.

Lt. Dan Choi, the Arabic-speaking National Guardsman dismissed earlier this month, is a recent well-publicized example, but he stands on the shoulders of many who have come before.

During his time as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised to do something about this.

He claimed confidence that he could end the policy “reasonably.” The policy, Obama said, “doesn’t make us more safe.”

“You don’t hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it’s, ‘Yes,’” said soon-to-be White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Jan. 14 when asked if the incoming administration planned to end the policy.

Those words were unequivocal, but the administration since then has done nothing but equivocate.

The administration announced it would not take action on behalf of Lt. Choi or anyone else currently facing expulsion under the policy.

A Pentagon spokesman said this week that no plans to change the policy are currently in the works and that no surveys or studies on the subject have been initiated within the service branches.

Earlier this year, National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones said he didn’t know if the administration would ever change the policy.

The Servicemembers’ Legal Defense Network, which specializes in defending soldiers facing discharge hearings under don’t ask/don’t tell, estimates that around 200 soldiers have been expunged for being gay since Obama took office in January.

Most distressingly, the administration actually picked up and carried on a Bush-era fight against a federal court ruling against blanket application of don’t ask/don’t tell.

The Ninth Circuit ruled last year that the Air Force could not discharge a decorated major who admitted to being a lesbian without specifically demonstrating how the major’s sexuality could “create an unacceptable risk” to “morale and unit cohesion” – the rationale given for banning gays under the 1993 law.

The Bush Administration appealed, of course, but its time ended before the appeal began.

Then the Obama Administration actually filed two extensions with the Supreme Court in an attempt to continue the Bush appeal before giving up last week.

“Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system,” said White House Spokesman Ben LaBolt.

The implication is clear. This potato is too hot for the president, and he has thrown it back to Congress.

Yes, don’t ask/don’t tell is a policy based on a federal law passed by Congress, and the president cannot simply overturn it.

But Obama enjoys wide popularity and powerful influence in a Congress controlled almost entirely by his own party. He has muscled through more than one controversial initiative already.

It is difficult for everyone who opposes don’t ask/don’t tell to view Obama’s decision to punt on this issue as anything but weakness and impossible for the gay and lesbian community in the United States to view it as anything but a betrayal.

Obama has been right on many things, but he is wrong on this.

The president should not wait for Congress to act or for the views of the entrenched leadership at the Pentagon to evolve.

Don’t ask/don’t tell is the only law on the books permitting the government to engage in blanket discrimination.

Now is the time to begin dismantling it.I told the gays before the election that Obama wasn't going to live up to his word on this issue. They were too busy basking in his radiant corona to care. Now we've got him in office. Where's the action?

I don't think "he can't get it through Congress" is a good excuse, and it's definitely the only one he can attempt to make. He said he was going to get rid of the policy. He said this explicitly. It's been over four months. Why is he waiting?

It sure just looks like his administration has decided not to care.

chefTENGU
05-20-2009, 18:11
I'd like him to do something about it, too. It's a stupid, hypocritical policy.

The Daily Show had someone on a couple weeks ago who's written a new book about the whole thing. Apparently, being openly gay is a big no-no in the military, but as long as you profess to be straight, even if you get caught in the act of doing something totally gay (i.e., men), all you have to do is explain that it was merely a "homosexual lapse" and you get a mulligan.

deathofcheese
05-20-2009, 18:35
I really want to karma you or just post "HA"s, but that really shouldn't be funny.

Charlie
05-20-2009, 19:53
As a Christian, you know where I stand on the issue. That's all I'm saying.

Bloodcinder
05-20-2009, 19:59
I dare you to defend "don't ask, don't tell" with anything Biblical.

Charlie
05-20-2009, 20:03
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1302

I was looking for something more in-depth, thank you. Besides, you asked me to get biblical.

Bloodcinder
05-20-2009, 20:05
(You'll notice I edited my post after I saw you removed yours.)

To be more specific, the issue of whether or not gays should be allowed to serve in the military has nothing to do with sin. Consider any sinner. Should that sinner be allowed to serve in the military?

The simple answer is that the Bible is absolutely silent in the New Testament in matters of military policy (except that we are to respect the government). This is why you have such extreme war-mongering Christians following the same Bible as extreme pacifist Christians.

This issue cannot be reduced to "gays are sinners" no matter what you may believe about them. There are also adulterers, atheists, and divorcées in the military. Should they also be expelled for their sin?

Z
05-20-2009, 20:10
Going by the source provided:

Q. What should be the Christian's attitude toward the homosexual?

We must always keep before us the fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God's love. The Bible says, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I John 2:2). The Christian who shares God's love for lost sinners will seek to reach the homosexual with the gospel of Christ, which "is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). As a Christian I should hate all sin but I can find no justification for hating the sinner. The homosexual is a precious soul for whom Christ died. We Christians can show him the best way of life by pointing him to Christ. Our Lord said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). We are obligated to take the gospel to all.Given the bolded text, I'm not sure what biblicaly justifies man punishing the sinner for the sin. Christianity, in this source, says to love the sinner. Really, man's not even supposed to judge with a hateful heart or he will be judged, himself, for his hate.

Seegtease
05-21-2009, 00:27
As a Christian, you know where I stand on the issue. That's all I'm saying.

Being Christian should have no bearing on your stance concerning this situation. As a Christian, you probably think homosexuality is sinful. You should also think premarital sex, lying, blaspheming, and stealing are sinful. All people have committed at least one of those. If your standard for entering the military is to be sin-free, then technically nobody should enter the military. So you can't possibly mean that.

If your stance is that people who have committed the particular sin of lying with another person of the same sex should not be allowed in the military, you have absolutely no Biblical basis for that argument. It's just as bad a sin as anything else, and you really shouldn't elevate it any higher (or lower as the case of sin may be) than any other sin. No such restrictions exist in the Bible.

So really, I'm kind of curious as to your reasoning for believing gays should not be eligible for military service? Do you also think they should continue to be denied the right to donate blood?

I'm not trying to be mean, but I really don't get your point, so I'd like you to elaborate.

Killer_Man_
05-21-2009, 01:49
If someone wants to live an die for his country, then let him.

Anythign else, fuck them and let god sort them them out. That's right I said it and I'm fucking drunk.

It's how I stand.

Let God sort them out and stop being the 'inspector of fruit.'

Gareth
05-21-2009, 09:47
In my opinion I think the bible is in one way or another "A load of bs".

This is in no way to shit talk Christians, or bible-believers. As I am Christian. I just think the holy book of holies is too damn biased.

Also, if god didn't want gay people, and he REALLY didn't want them, he could just wave his magic wand and let it be done with. Back in the day anybody that questioned the church was a sinner, and some straight as fuck homophobic preist that may have seen this threat to his sexuality probably put that part in there.

And If I get hit by a lightning bolt on the way to school today I'll know that part is wrong.

As far as I'm considered about it being in the military, dont ask dont tell is fine.
It's the military, so buckle up buttercup and prepare for a job that doesn't have your precious little discrimination against this or that protections in it.

Bloodcinder
05-21-2009, 10:35
As far as I'm considered about it being in the military, dont ask dont tell is fine.
It's the military, so buckle up buttercup and prepare for a job that doesn't have your precious little discrimination against this or that protections in it.
"Buckle up"? You can "buckle up" (keep quiet about your orientation on the job) and still get discharged if somebody dislikes you enough to launch an investigation into your personal life. How's that fair? You can't prepare for that other than by being born straight... or just not serving your country.

Seegtease
05-21-2009, 23:02
buckle up buttercup

This is kind of offensive.

Gerrymander
05-21-2009, 23:28
As far as I'm considered about it being in the military, dont ask dont tell is fine.
It's the military, so buckle up buttercup and prepare for a job that doesn't have your precious little discrimination against this or that protections in it.

The issue isn't "oh, I'm gay, please give me special treatment". It's the fact that someone can get dishonorably discharged from the military for no other reason than being gay.

An analogy would be being fired from your job because someone found out you were of Irish descent or were left-handed.

Killer_Man_
05-22-2009, 00:23
Gerry/BC is right.

But who else would know if you are gay or not but yourself?

EDIT:

What I mean is, you can be dishonorably discharged for having relationships with your comrades in arms(Unless it's only with a superior officer) but other than that I'm not sure.

Either way it's still silly that you can't serve your country.

Bloodcinder
05-22-2009, 00:53
You can also be discharged for having a relationship with a civilian. Or for having same-sex pornography. Or for liking to go to gay bars.

Seegtease
05-22-2009, 05:14
An analogy would be being fired from your job because someone found out you were of Irish descent or were left-handed.

Or not liking peas?

Gareth
05-22-2009, 09:36
Don't start jumping down my throat, I'm not the one that decided to make the military a bunch of hard asses.

I am just saying that's what the military is "Buckle up and go die for your country, etc".

I am also saying that if you don't like the don't ask don't tell policy, then either don't join or get some legislation to protect against it.

Because when you sign on to be in the military, you basically agree to that policy and many other not so nice ones.

It is silly, but that's the way it is, until someone changes it.

Arainach
05-22-2009, 10:00
Or not liking peas?No, because not liking peas, while trivial, is something you choose.

Bloodcinder
05-22-2009, 10:32
I am also saying that if you don't like the don't ask don't tell policy, then either don't join or get some legislation to protect against it.
...That's the point of this thread.

Seegtease
05-22-2009, 19:54
No, because not liking peas, while trivial, is something you choose.
That was kind of my point. No matter where you stand on that issue of choice or not, the military disallowing gays is ridiculous.

chefTENGU
05-22-2009, 20:05
I'd think it basically amounts to the issue of segregation in the military and why it was stupid to maintain it.

Of course, nobody ever got discharged just for being black. I think the only army ever mustered on American soil that wouldn't admit blacks was the Confederate army.

Bloodcinder
05-22-2009, 20:09
It's also a fact that gays are discharged at lower rates during elevated conflicts.

Turns out that when we really really need gropos it's okay if they like other boys.

Seegtease
05-22-2009, 20:18
Also, I'm kind of wondering why you're getting on Obama's case about it. It's been what, six months? He can't fix all the problems immediately, he may have proposed a lot, but he's got 4 or 8 years to do it all.

I think it's kind of unfair to say he doesn't care or he lied about doing something about it just because he hasn't done it yet.

Bloodcinder
05-22-2009, 20:22
His spokespeople have already said they aren't going to do anything about it... after Obama promised to do something about it.

So it's not a matter of how long he's had. It's a matter of the fact that his administration has claimed that they are no longer interested in committing to one of his campaign promises.

Check the bolded statements in the first post.

Seegtease
05-22-2009, 20:23
I see. Well that's pretty gay. Actually, no, it's not!

Bloodcinder
05-22-2009, 20:27
Yeah, it's definitely ghey.

All these homos were running around during the entire campaign basking in the euphoria exploding from Obama's big gay rainbow vag. As it turns out, he doesn't want to do anything about DOMA, he doesn't want to do anything about DADT, and he doesn't want to do anything about blood.

I told them so.

chefTENGU
12-22-2010, 20:11
I just heard today that Congress finally voted to repeal DADT, and it the bill doing so was just signed not too long ago.

I can't believe keeping my head down during the holiday rush kept me from hearing a piece of news like this. Kudos to the government for finally doing something right.

SpaceProg
12-22-2010, 22:57
Well, that's ONE thing Obama's managed to follow through on, I guess...

Killer_Man_
12-23-2010, 00:07
Yeah but it isn't just Obama's fault. They've been discussing it ever since he came into office... The Senate that is.

SpaceProg
12-23-2010, 03:53
I think Obama's going to end up being a lamer duck than Carter was. He (like Carter) will probably make a much better ex-President than President.

Stupidthing0
12-23-2010, 12:06
sooo.. I'm just saying... I don't think having it a law or bill or whatever is really going to change much in the military at all. =\ they kinda use their 'own' laws there anyway

chefTENGU
12-23-2010, 12:27
I think that's kind of the point.

Since 70% of the poll responders didn't much care if gays were allowed to serve openly, it was just silly to keep them living a lie and pretending to be something they're not just to avoid a dishonorable discharge.

Colonel Skills
12-24-2010, 16:10
Well, that's ONE thing Obama's managed to follow through on, I guess...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

SpaceProg
12-24-2010, 16:55
Interesting site. I stand corrected. Gives me a little more hope, at least.

chefTENGU
12-24-2010, 20:38
Obama's been catching a lot of flack from just about everyone in the country for one thing or another.

He seems to me like he's genuinely trying his hardest to achieve the things he'd like while compromising when necessary to make any change possible. Of course, to conservative Republicans (which are just about all of them), he's singlehandedly destroyed the country, while to liberal Democrats he's done nothing but acquiesce to his opposition's demands and fart around for the past two years.

Killer_Man_
12-24-2010, 22:29
That is a interesting site especially about Wisconsin and the train problem still going on... But yes, he's gotten a lot of flack but even then how can you do any progress when the senate/house is against you and or they kept philibustering(sp?) and causing problems to stop them from doing their job.