Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Wants Quick 'Change,' Not 'Repeal' Of Don't Ask Don't Tell

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:07 AM
Original message
Obama Wants Quick 'Change,' Not 'Repeal' Of Don't Ask Don't Tell
Edited on Tue Jul-14-09 01:23 AM by IndianaGreen
Another of those "Change You Can Believe In". How about Socialism: change you can count on? A socialist President would have done away with DADT on DAY ONE!

Israel has had LGBTs serving openly for years, and there is no controversy about it. Why is Obama more concerned about offending fundies that never voted for him than he is about LGBTs that put him in the White House?

Obama Wants Quick "Change," Not "Repeal" Of Don't Ask Don't Tell

First Posted: 07-13-09 06:31 PM | Updated: 07-13-09 10:18 PM


President Barack Obama said over the weekend that he would like to tackle the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy "sooner rather than later." But in an interview with CNN, he also argued that the White House was powerless in seeking such a reversal, forced to wait for the legislative branch to act first. And, in terminology likely to anger the gay rights community, the president called for a "change" rather than "repeal" of the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the armed forces.

In the interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper pressed Obama as to why his administration had not moved on a key promise it made to the gay rights community -- that it would overturn the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy crafted during the Clinton years.

"Look," the president replied, "I've had conversations with (Defense Secretary) Bob Gates as well as Admiral (Mike) Mullen about the fact that I want to see this law change. I also want to make sure that we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the Executive Branch simply to say we will not enforce a law. It is our duty to enforce laws.

"But look, the bottom line is, I want to see this changed," Obama added, "and we've already contacted congressional allies. I want to make sure that it's changed in a way that ultimately works well for our military and for the outstanding gay and lesbian soldiers that are both currently enlisted or would like to enlist."

"Do you personally have a timetable in your mind of when you would like to see (the law) changed?" Cooper interjected.

"I'd like to see it done sooner rather than later," Obama replied. "And we've got a process to not only work it through Congress, but also to make sure that the Pentagon has thought through all the ramifications of how this would be most effective."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/obama-wants-qu...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. So gay people have equal rights in Venezuela?
A socialist President would have done away with DADT on DAY ONE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes, and in Cuba
Cuba even offers free sex reasignment surgery to transgender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. You might want to double check that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. wiki is not a reliable source for anything
You might want to check the DU archives for this forum for stories posted about Cuba from non-capitalist sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Of course they aren't. Except that that info appears to be current.
http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=1654

Talking about equality and actually doing it are not the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I told you to check DU archives
Cuba Permits Sex Change Operations

Topic started by IndianaGreen on May-28-09 05:58 PM (7 replies)
Last modified by kenny blankenship on May-29-09 01:46 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Cuba National Health Care System to Cover Sex Change Operations

Topic started by Mika on May-28-09 05:05 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by NMMNG on May-28-09 05:09 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Cuba has America beat on LGBT rights!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. I didn't need to go to DU archives to know about that. It is not, however, the standard of rights
It also was not at all related to your claim that a socialist president would have ended DADT on his first day. Venezuela and Cuba do not permit gay people to serve openly in the military. Moreover, no state in Venezuela or Cuba has legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. Semantics. Wouldn't a repeal of DADT result in the pre Clinton policy?
by definition a repeal means you return it to status quo.

Lets not dig in the weeds for things to be outraged about. The lack of movement on DADT is troubling enough without having to twist a statement talking about changing the unjust law into something bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. I agree with you
Edited on Tue Jul-14-09 08:47 AM by ruggerson
I think Stein is off base here. Obama uses the words "change" and "repeal" to effectively mean the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
3. He is the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. He could repeal DADT immediately if he wanted to
Or at the very least, order that it not be enforced until it can be officially repealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Obama could use STOP LOSS to prevent discharge of gay servicemembers
but Obama's track record is one in which he has only paid lip service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. I'd rather he stop-loss people who want to be there. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. He has the authority to suspend discharges
as the CinC. DADT is Federal Law, Congress would have to repeal that law. They would also have to make legislative changes to the UCMJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
16. No he could not.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice can only be changed by Congress.

And I don't think you really want to go any farther down the road of the President being able to decide which laws are enforced and which ones are ignored. We tried that already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-27-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Sigh... Yes, he could. -- 10 USC 654 Section (b) --
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html )

(b) Policy. A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

In other words, the Secretary of Defense sets the "procedures" for "separation" under 10 USC 654 (DADT). The Secretary of Defense serves at the pleasure of the President. The President could, if he chose, direct the Secretary of Defense to amend the "procedures" for determination of grounds for separation under 10 USC 654... theoretically in any way that he might choose to. Certainly, at the very least, the President could direct the Secretary of Defense to amend "procedure" to include a 6 month delay, or 2 year delay, or what have you... before moving forward with any other conditions of making a finding, as a reflection of the fact that, currently, both the House and the Senate are considering bills to overhaul/repeal 10 USC 654 (DADT).

If he wanted to, that is... It's really just a matter of priority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
t0dd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. I cringe every time I hear anything from the Obama administration regarding GLBT rights
Edited on Tue Jul-14-09 01:37 AM by t0dd
It's really sad, but I know investing any credibility in his "fierce advocacy" will only lead to heartache and disappointment. Instead, from now on, I will shift my support and attention to those GLBT friendly senators and representatives that advocate their principles over cautionary politics and gross inexpediency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. I say
close the bank. It sure got their attention the last time the LGBT community decided to collectively close our wallets.

Q3JR4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roughsatori Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. Me too, has he ever even known a GLBTQ person
in his life. He is out of touch. Some Republicans are more Liberal than he on GLBTQ issues. He is out of touch.

I just turned down going to my brother's wedding, and my sister's daughter's wedding. I wrote them a note that until I have the same rights as them I can not participate in their wedding day. I am an exile in my own country. I told them that if things were reversed I would fight for their rights. No more weddings for me. Even though I find marriage an outmoded absurd convention. I should have the right to make the same mistakes as heterosexuals. Same goes for the war. I have no desire to fight in the 2 wrong headed wars we are involved in...but I should have the right to serve openly in I choose to. Until I have equal civil rights the USA is an enemy of mine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-14-09 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
13. more non-leadership
oh well.

President Obama, answer this question for me. Do you believe that Don't Ask Don't Tell should exist? Do you personally believe that Americans who happen to be gay should be not honored as Americans in the military if it turns out that they happen to be gay?

Parse that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cecilfirefox Donating Member (404 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
19. The change & repeal issue your insinuating doesn't really hold weight when you read the article. It
is very, very misleading. o_O
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. "Change". "Repeal". Who Cares? Still Just WORDS.
What it comes down to is that Obama plans to take no action to allow gay servicemembers to serve openly.

"When do you want this done?"

"Sooner rather than later."

You know what I'd like to see sooner rather than later? An end to empty promises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-25-09 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC