→ Gay Rights, Obama
Obama, Gays, and the Military
| Mon Oct. 12, 2009 10:55 AM PDT
After a huge gay rights rally in Washington DC, John Harwood of CNBC reported this in a segment on MSNBC:
If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the “internet left fringe” Lester.
And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.
The blogosphere went nuts. But wait:
In an email to the Huffington Post on Monday, Harwood clarified that the quote was not meant to convey any displeasure on the part of the administration for the gay community's public advocacy.
"My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren't about the LGBT community or the marchers," he wrote. "They referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues in addition to gay rights, including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo — and whether all that added up to trouble with Obama's liberal base..."
You know, blind quotes are blind quotes. You either take them seriously or you don't — and there was never any reason to take this particular quote any more seriously than any other blind quote. And sure enough, not only does this one not necessarily represent widespread opinion in the White House, it turned out not to even have anything at all to do with the LGBT community.
Still, even putting that aside, there's a big segment of the gay community that's pretty pissed off at Obama right now. In one sense, I understand: they supported him, his record on gay issues is pretty modest so far, and the only way they're going to get what they want is by keeping the pressure on him.
At the same time, some of the criticism is way over the top. Obama doesn't suddenly become a different person whenever he's dealing with whatever your particular hot button issue is. He's the same guy all the time: cautious, tactical, organized, and prone to prioritizing things pretty carefully. For better or worse, he's also sensitive about learning lessons from the Clinton administration, and Clinton obviously failed miserably when he tried to force the Pentagon to accept gays early in his administration.
Obama plainly plans to avoid that trap. Military policy toward gays is a huge hot button, it can be changed only by Congress, support isn't there yet, and in any case Obama pretty clearly told us last year that his major priorities at the beginning of his term were going to be Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, healthcare, financial regulation, and global warming. That's a massive agenda. Given all that, there was never the slightest chance that he'd put a ton of energy into gay issues in his first year.
Instead, he's slowly building up support for change. He — very smartly, I think — wants to make sure that when Congress takes up gays in the military, it doesn't look like a liberal Democrat trying to force something on the service chiefs. He wants Gates to support it, and Mullen, and the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and maybe a few high-profile commanders and conservative opinion leaders as well. Failure in Congress does no one any good, and like it or not, this kind of widespread support within the military is what it's going to take to get Congress to vote to change the current policy.
For my money, Obama tends to be too cautious, tactical, and organized, and the kind of pressure he feels from the blogosphere is a good thing, regardless of what Mr. Blind Quote thinks. But there's still an objective reality out there, and the fact that Obama recognizes it doesn't make him a sellout. It just makes him human.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Perhaps it will help Obama
Submitted by gregor (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 11:30 AM PDT.
Perhaps it will help Obama and his supporters a lot if he clearly lays out his priorities on various issues. This may piss off the groups whose interests will be in the bottom of the list, but everyone will be the wiser with the knowledge of what the game plan is.
The current MO of Obama makes him look like he is trying to say pleasant things to the groups he is addressing without any real plan of action.
A Perfect Opportunity...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 12:10 PM PDT.
Obama's already made the only point that should have to be made on the issue: at a time when we're fighting two wars, we really can't be losing soldiers over sexual identity.
That said, perhaps when he announces that he is going to give in to McCrystal's suggestions for a surge, he will announce that he is asking Congress to strike down DADT as part of the war expansion bill. If he blows this opportunity, it will be all too clear (if you ask me, it already is) just how Obama feels about his LGBT constituency.
Not just lack of DADT progress, Kevin.
Submitted by Glenn (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 12:13 PM PDT.
The idea that we in the LGBT community who are exasperated with Obama are only focused on lack of progress on DADT is just wrong. It's a convenient strawman, but that's all ilt is. First, there are the affirmative swipes we've had to endure, e.g., the administration's unnecessary (and unnecessarily offensive) defenses of DOMA. (Please don't come back with the canard that they had to defend it, ok? that's bullshit.) Second, there are the things he could have done with the stroke of a pen, no Congress involved, like lifting the HIV immigration ban, which he has yet to do. (And you know, there's fairly strong arguments that he could stop prosecutions under DADT by order as well.) There are also the pretty uncontroversial measures like ENDA, which we've seen little or no action on (and no push by the White House). Yes, we got the hate crimes bill through the House this past week so he could have something to actually cite to the HRC on Saturday. With significant Dem majorities in both houses, this record so far is pretty dismal, and it's not just because he hasn't managed to push through the DADT repeal.
I agree but..
Submitted by Christopher1974 on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 3:58 PM PDT.
You've got a lot of your facts wrong.
Despite what you are reading at AmericaBlog and others, yes, the DOJ does have to support DOMA. No they didn't have to do it as strongly. And they did back off.
Secondly, the HIV ban has been lifted. It was lifted under Bush. The problem is that the DHHS was slow to implement. Obama pushed that forward, but even then the process for writing new regulations comes with a specific pace -- there's a writing period, a comment period, and then reflection on the comments. It's something that takes a long time (and should have been started under Bush). It's an a terribly unfortunate situation but there's nothing Obama could have done quicker.
But yes, DADT prosecutions should stop now. We need to have Obama stand up for Civil Rights a little more strongly.
How though does an African American president, one that wants to really take on three large problems -- health care, financial regulation, and the environment -- take on anything related to civil rights without the rightwing noise machine starting a race riot. And believe you me, they want nothing more than to have Obama get a high profile loss and pull down the entire left agenda with it.
Once you loose in Washington, you don't get to come back. So even within striking DADT, or promoting ENDA, or UAFA, or striking DOMA, we don't have the votes in Congress. Not even close. And if we lose any of those, we won't have a chance to repair that for decades.
It's unfortunate, but the courts are our best way forward (and have been for civil rights for 60 years at least, maybe 200 years). The court inspires action (I'd argue too that the more extreme the DOMA argument is, and with the expectation that the Court won't buy it, would lead to case law permanently striking those extreme ideas.)
This is the reality of the situation. Civil Rights leadership does not come from the White House or Congress -- any place where real people (the bigoted voters) have a say. How do you get around that?
christopher // inaudiblenonsense.com
Bullsh@$
Submitted by Matthew G. Saroff (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 12:23 PM PDT.
When you say that, "Instead, he's slowly building up support for change," you neglect to note that there has been ZERO support for gay rights with absolutely NO pressure on anyone at any time regarding moving the issue along, and that in the South Carolina Primary, he allowed a homophobic singer to MC his gospel concert during the primaries.
I am sure that he won't veto any measure that advances gay rights, but I see zero evidence that he is doing ANYTHING to build up support.
Being willing to sign a bill is better than his predecessor, but that does not make him a advocate for gay civil rights, particularly when every leak on the issue seems to be, "Just wait at the back of the bus until Obama thinks that the time is right."
Clarification on the Bullsh$# Accusation
Submitted by Matthew G. Saroff (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 12:53 PM PDT.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/30/hastings-dadt-white-house/
This ain't just someone not pushing for change, this is the White House actively lobbying against any sort of sanity in DADT.
I'm not saying that Obama is a homophobe, but I am saying that he is willing to sacrifice gay rights in order to avoid conflict.
Clarification on the Bullsh$# Accusation
Submitted by Matthew G. Saroff (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 12:54 PM PDT.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/30/hastings-dadt-white-house/
This ain't just someone not pushing for change, this is the White House actively lobbying against any sort of sanity in DADT.
I'm not saying that Obama is a homophobe, but I am saying that he is willing to sacrifice gay rights in order to avoid conflict.
No, this is trying to
Submitted by ibid (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 5:25 PM PDT.
No, this is trying to prevent a half-measure when the long-term goal is a full repeal. I'm sure if Obama put his full support behind the amendment and didn't immediately and vocally follow up with a campaign for full repeal, we'd hear how Obama thinks he solved the DADT issue and placated the gay community with half-measures.
And the fact that you don't see evidence that Obama is throwing his weight around doesn't mean it's not happening. It's true that he's not doing a full media offensive on DADT or other gay rights issues, but as Kevin pointed out those aren't his priorities in his first year. However, he did just give a highly publicized speech to a gay rights group in which he reiterated his commitment to repealing DADT. Since the focus is currently on healthcare and Afghanistan, that's all I'd expect him to say on it, and frankly, all I want him saying until he is ready to make a real push. But that doesn't mean that he's not taking positive steps to build support behind the scenes, preparing for the time when this does become a bigger priority. For instance, perhaps in meeting with McChrystal he's trying to push him to publicly support a repeal, since we should be trying to retain as many soldiers as possible if we are increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan. Obviously, I don't know if this is happening, and you may be right that Obama isn't committed to or doesn't plan to follow through on gay rights issues. But his critics generally don't know what his plans are either, all they know is that it's not happening fast enough for them. Which is fine, if you feel that way you should continue to push him, but it's just absurd and counterproductive to assume that you have to work against the administration when they are publicly saying they want to work with you.
Part free russian dating
Submitted by compiknews on Sun Oct. 25, 2009 8:43 AM PDT.
Part free russian dating service of them are beaten or even murdered. Such stories about failed marriage become frequently published in the newspapers in foreign countries, like America, as well as in dating free girl russian. Lately, Washington, D. C passed a law, according to which russian dating sites are forced to notify potential outland girls of the former convictions or failed marriages with foreign wives of the man, whom the Best Russian girls is about to wed. This is made, as the measure of prevention of the criminal events, occurred with such horrifying regularity. The second danger is connected to guys russian woman dating service. Amid the Americans, who want to wed Russian ladies, are considerable amount of divorced males in the age about 40 years -these are persons who didn't manage to grow to be eventually house holders agencies russian dating. In the last years, American and Russian newspapers keep on publishing heart-rending events russian women dating service regarding Russian ladies (as well as the Ukrainian girls and other citizens of republics of former Soviet Union), who, to put it mildly, have not been that happy in such wedlocks. Somebody is russian american dating beaten by his husband, other is deprived of being with her kid, and somebody is even murdered, and the corpse is digged in the forest russian internet dating. The agencies normally don't inform clients who want to marry to a foreigner about the awful backdrop of russian dating sites - since it is not advantageous. In Washington D. C, for instance, lately has been accepted the law, under which the marriage agencies are forced to notify the probable fianc? Es in their mother language free russian dating service that they possess a right to demand an authorized paper regarding the fact of convictions and preceding marriages with the foreigners from their men particularly, for the reason of the criminal events, committed against the brides - emigrants, dating russian bride which happen more often.
Cautious, tactical?
Submitted by avannavon on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 12:56 PM PDT.
Which Obama have you been watching? I haven't seen anything resembling "cautious" or "tactical" about this President. I've seen a rampant ideologue without a real good sense of reality charging around causing trouble with great gusto. Was it "cautious" or "tactical" to put us $13 trillion in debt in 90 days? Get a grip.
SELF - CONTRADICTION IS THE MESSAGE
Submitted by fingerfood on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 1:11 PM PDT.
Steve M. over at 'No More Mr. Nice Blog' has an interesting take ...
Obama's views on the
Submitted by fringe (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 2:10 PM PDT.
Obama's views on the relative importance of LGBT issues and the influence the LGBT community had with him were fairly well know during the Democratic Primary. Anyone who thought Obama would champion equal rights was either not paying attention or fooling themselves.
Is it just me?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 5:44 PM PDT.
Or was it offensive that the WH spokesman's talking about how bloggers should "take off their pajamas, get dressed" and realize that it's tough to run a country? Not only does it feed into the stereotype of bloggers as dillettantes blogging in their pajamas from mom's basement, but it insults a group of people who, IIRC, helped get Obama elected. (I'm in my pajamas right now, if you want to know...)
Offensive? Oh poor little special bloggers
Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 11:42 PM PDT.
Grow up. The quote is quite right. How bloody special to get oneself all offended over a "stereotype" about blogging.
What happened to his
Submitted by Luther on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 7:16 PM PDT.
What happened to his pro-corruption agenda on illegal migration? Ha, ha. A bright spot in the unemployment stats.
sell out?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Oct. 12, 2009 11:19 PM PDT.
you're the sell out. since you started pimping for Obama some time ago, I don't read you much anymore, so I don't know what your pet issues are these days. But I bet that if some "senior advisor" came out against them, you'd be mad as hell.
Failing to live up to campaign promises is a bad thing. Insulting the people who are trying to hold you to those promises is unforgivable. And a lick-spiittle like you who would defend such a thing? I'm not sure there's a word for that.
"He's the same guy all the
Submitted by skeptonomist (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 6:40 AM PDT.
"He's the same guy all the time"
That must mean he's been a liar all the time. He made definite promises during the campaign and he has clearly reneged on some and temporized on others. The quote from the White House may not apply specifically to gay issues, but if so it is even worse - it means that liberal supporters should excuse him for all his blatantly broken promises.
More importantly, did independents and moderates from both parties vote for him on the assumption that he intended the opposite of his campaign promises?
Once you lose ...
Submitted by spot check billy (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 7:10 AM PDT.
Once you loose [sic] in Washington, you don't get to come back.
For example, notice how McCain, Cantor, McConnell, Boehner and the rest of the DC GOP horde can't get booked on cable news and have no influence. Or maybe that rule doesn't really match with reality well.
What happened to Don't Ask?
Submitted by Houston B. on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 1:01 PM PDT.
DADT hasn't been the policy since 2000. The military asks all the time. Lesbians are being sexually harrassed and intimated from filing complaints by the fear of being accused of being a Lesbian. If you're asked point blank in an investigation, you have to answer honestly. If you don't you're guilty of lying in an official investigation. DADT is offensive to the Gay and Lesbian community far more than all those nice liberal, straight people who are telling us to be patient seem to understand.
d
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 1:43 PM PDT.
The only second rate citizens remaining in the US....
Submitted by Airika Dollner (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 6:02 PM PDT.
When it comes to LGBT community, sadly, there will NEVER be an opportune time for any elected official to support the causes that this minority group suffers from every day. DOMA is unconstitutional [period]. Banning gay marriage, esp. via a VOTE by a majority against a minority, is unconstitutional. Discharging American men and women from the military, esp. during war time, simply for their sexual orientation, is disgraceful. Keeping LGBT families separated because one partner is from another country, and has almost no way to immigrate legally, is CRUEL. It is way over due for our government to have some compunction, and do what is right for a group of people who deserve human consideration NOW like any other American. Destroying people's happiness, who are law abiding, valuable citizens is ABSURDITY no matter what excuse you throw at it. These laws, policies, and moralistic stances are backwards, and have no legitimate justification.
When blacks were given equal rights and protections.... there were riots, protests, and revolt, but it was the right thing to do. It had to be done. I say this, all the while knowing, that logic means very little in modern US media, government, or society. We are in the dark ages on all issues that aren't somehow involved with the interests of the top 1% of wealth or the Military Industrial Complex. This fact is the cancer this nation suffers from, and I'd like to see a cure.
The Ramifications...
Submitted by Kam (not verified) on Fri Oct. 23, 2009 9:19 PM PDT.
Has anyone stopped to think about the costs of ending DADT on the American people? In the barracks, straight men share rooms with straight men, straight women share rooms with straight women so that there is no sexual tension between them. You can't put a gay male with the straight men and you can't put them with the straight women, you also can't put them with each other without causing unwanted sexual tension in at least one direction. Therefore, you would have to give all gay military members their own room. Barracks occupancy is already too high and many members are forced out and given money for housing, which is expensive for the government to cover, but is a necessity. So if members are currently 2 or even four to a room, where are these single rooms supposed to come from? Now take into account the fact that repealing DADT is an act of equality, so other straight members are now 2-4 to a cramped room while the gay service member is in his own room, no equality there, so now you have dissention in the ranks. You could give more service members housing allowance to live off base but where does that money come from?
Also, you have to factor in the fact that many service members will not accept the gay members, and physical altercations will most undoubtedly ensue, causing lawsuits against the government, where does that money come from?
I am a US Marine, and I have gay friends, had a gay uncle whom I loved that died from AIDS in 1993. I'm open minded and I hold neither a democratic or republican allegiance. I just want to know how on God's green earth this would ever work?
The simple answer most would say is that we should accept all service members as equals, but many will not, and many more will simply get out instead of dealing with all the drama. Should this occur, our military is severely crippled with the senior, battle tested ranks leaving. In a time where we are spread thin to begin with, is this the time to be addressing this issue that I cannot for the life of me find a way to make work for ALL involved???
Open-Minded Common Sense
Submitted by Rick E. (not verified) on Thu Jan. 28, 2010 8:51 PM PST.
In 1981 I joined the U.S. Marines. I spent nearly 13 years in the Corps before I was medically retired in 1994. I am about the most open-minded person you will find as a conservative. I can safely attribute this to my liberal views in life. I am pro-choice, agnostic, dope smokin conservative who has absolutely no problem with homosexuality...To each his own right? What I do have a problem with is what serving openly gay can do to moral of a military unit. I would say that most military members are decent God loving people who for the most part believe in the bible. Straight middle America men and women. Here are my views and opinions why it's dangerous for gays to serve. This is a debate about soldiers being required to defend their country while living and rooming in close quarters with each other. It is a fact that their effectiveness depends on mutual trust and uncomplicated camaraderie. Sexual relations or tension between soldiers, of whatever gender, undermines this bond. A genuine worry is that not all gay applicants for the military will be driven by a vocational calling. The high concentration of individuals of one gender within a military unit make it a fruitful source of sexual partners, and will provoke a disproportionate gravitation of gays, lesbians and bisexuals towards application. This in turn will provoke even more homophobia among heterosexuals as these motives become clear. I can attest to this. My first assignment to Third Battalion Fifth Marines (The Most Decorated Combat Battalion in the Marine Corps) Headquarters Company at Camp Pendleton (Camp Margarita), grunts lived in open squad bays with racks aligned in proper military order. One of the admin Marines, a Cpl was a flamboyant and daring homosexual. This was well before don't ask don't tell. This Cpl had a tendency to take his sexuality to a level that was extremely dangerous to himself and the company in general. He would sneak into other barracks late at night and try to cop a feel from a sleeping Marine in his rack. His actions soon caught the eye of the command and he began his process of an administrative discharge. While this discharge was sent through the chain of command which actually took much longer then a standard honorable discharge or even a bad conduct discharge, he was on legal hold for several months before his actual discharge papers came through. He was still up to his old tricks and one night fondeled the wrong Marine and with a thourough ass kicking, he was taken away by ambulance where he nearly lost his life. Can you imagine the uneasiness of the Batallion? If you have never served I guess it would be a little hard to imagine the morale problems in the company. Needless to say after his recovery he was discharged dishonorably and the Marine that whooped his ass was given an Article 15 Non Juducial Punishment with a very light slap on the hand. The armed forces are a special case, putting their employees into life-or-death situations where any mental distraction could be fatal. Men and women aren’t sent into combat together; why should gays and heterosexuals? Closeted homosexuals run the risk of blackmail, which could have implications for national security if they were privy to military secrets. I hope all can understand the views I present. I consider myself a professional military leader and understand the real ramifications. The issue is not with the homosexual’s ability to perform the tasks, it’s with the unit’s effectiveness, as impacted by the knowledge of the teammate’s homosexual proclivities.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
